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

I want to respond to an earlier question from Senator Ludlam. I am advised that the scenarios to be modelled by AEMO to explore the energy market and transmission implications in moving towards 100 per cent renewable energy are being considered. Currently, AEMO's scenarios undertaken for its existing role in providing information for transmission planning are focused on the NEM. Given that the NEM represents by far the bulk of existing generation and emissions, the NEM will clearly be the key focus of new scenarios. Nevertheless, the treatment of smaller groups, which I think is an issue the senator raised, is an issue still to be worked through. I am advised that Minister Ferguson's department and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Minister Combet's department, are in active discussions with AEMO to finalise the scope of the scenarios to be modelled.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put a couple of questions on notice. If that is all the information, I thank the minister for providing that response. I am interested to know whether any Western Australian officials in the Office of Energy, for example, or any senior departmental officials or indeed the Minister for Energy in WA have been involved in those discussions. If so, can you provide us with some detail?

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

I will get some advice and come back to the Senate in the course of the debate. I did have a response to Senator Joyce on a couple of the issues he raised but I do not know whether he wanted to put more things to me before I responded.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I would like to hear that response.

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

I accept that there are a number of aspects of the legislation before the Senate which do involve some complexity because they obviously deal with what is a significant economic reform. I am advised that, consistent with what I said earlier, in relation to the provision of units under the energy security package, the regulator will obviously allocate a portion of the pool of units available to eligible entities. To ensure it does not underallocate, there is a true-up subsequent to that, I think in the second year, which takes into account the actual free units and the estimates of what would have been provided to that identity under the legislation. The policy point here is that the provision of these units is linked to the government's policy objective of energy security. If you read the explanatory memorandum and the act, you will see there is discussion of the power system reliability test. I will just quote that:

To ensure energy security at the beginning of the mechanism, the Government has imposed conditions on assistance. This is designed to reduce the risk of unexpected behaviour from owners, controllers or operators of generation assets (or their creditors) affecting the supply reliability in Australia’s electricity markets. …

Generation complexes must comply with the ‘power system reliability test’ in order to receive assistance. The power system reliability test uses the value of free carbon units to influence the decisions of owners, operators or controllers of some generation complexes about when to withdraw generating capacity, to promote the secure supply of electricity.

So these provisions are about ensuring the continued security of Australia's electricity supply in the context of a significant transition.

I was not sure if the senator has asked this, but I have asked the question of whether the concept of reasonable estimate was reviewable in any way. I am advised it would be the subject only of judicial review. I am also advised that the concept of reasonable estimate is quite a common concept, not only in the bills before the Senate but in a range of federal and other legislation.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have to go home and Google 'true-up'. I have never heard that term before. This is a new world we are living in; we are truing up things. It sounds like 'chewing up'. The question that was clearly asked was, how do they calculate the regulator's reasonable estimate—what is the reasonable estimate? We have a very long procession of words without any semblance of an answer inside them. What we do know is that it is up for judicial review, because who needs a parliament anymore? We will just forget all about it.

I have another question. You can spend all night and all day going through these one after the other after the other. I grant that under this lunatic scheme the climate change authority makes its recommendation and then the minister, in his war against climate, accepts the recommendation. But it never goes through the parliament. This completely new tax does not have to go through both houses of parliament. It is just a regulatory instrument. There is no other tax in this nation that you can increase without having to go through the parliament, but this one you can. Things change. The only hope we have is the disallowance of a regulatory instrument. Then it goes to the default carbon pollution cap. The default carbon pollution cap is the carbon pollution cap of the previous flexible charge year minus 12 million. Why 12 million? I do not know. It is another number plucked out of the orifices of banality.

The problem with this default year—and this is the question, Minister—is that, if we disallow it, it goes to the default year minus 12 million. If it is disallowed again, it goes to the default year minus 12 million. There is no phase-out year. It will just keep going to the default year and there is nothing in the legislation about a phase-out year. It will go to the default year continuously until we have to turn out the lights in this place, until we are not allowed to breathe out anymore, until there is no carbon left in the economy. It is another one of these lunatic provisions in an extremely badly written bill. I will direct you explicitly to it. Go to part 2, section 18, page 31. What is the phase-out year? Where in this magnum opus is it actually explained to us what happens if we have a succession of default years, one after the other, because the Senate keeps on disallowing it? We will not have an economy; there will be nobody left here.

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

I thank the senator for his question. I am advised that the default reduction is consistent with the five per cent reduction to 2020, which I remind the senator is his own policy.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to tear you apart on that one.

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

I will take that interjection. Apparently I am going to be torn apart. Please proceed.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With a five per cent reduction, you must then concur that it is quite consistent to have a 12-million unit reduction year after year, seriatim, in perpetuity. You will go beyond five per cent; you will shut down the whole show. You have no phase-out clause in your section. It is incompetent, like everything else in this legislation is. If there is a phase-out clause, then here is the question: show it to me.

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

As I was saying, the default is a cap reduction, consistent with Senator Joyce's own policy. It only comes into effect if this parliament disallows the caps which are being put forward by the government. Obviously, one would hope that the parliament would make a more sensible decision than simply relying on default caps in the legislation.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what are you saying then? You just have to be upfront and honest with the Australian people. Just say it: 'I don't have a phase-out clause. We forgot to put one in.'

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

I do not think that is a serious question. I have explained it. The default reduction—have you finished?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't even started.

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

The default reduction is consistent with your policy and it only comes into effect if the parliament disallows the caps.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have had two questions and two absolute fiascos. Minister, you have said that it is in line with our policy. Our policy does not say that you can just keep on taking 12 million units out year after year, year after year without completely shutting down the show. You have failed to put in a safety clause mechanism in this legislation; you have left it out. As it reads, if it goes to default, which is quite probable if there is a change in the mechanism of the Senate, and if it goes on and on and on, we shut down the show by your own legislation. You might say that is unlikely. But the point is that, right at the start of this, we were looking at the competency of your drafting, the competency of your government. There is a bit of a concern when the answer to the first question involved a non-explanation because you did not have a clue and the answer to the second question was 'It's been left out,' because you made a mistake.

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

There is no mistake. What Senator Joyce is suggesting is that this chamber would be so incompetent as to disallow something this important permanently. That is what you are suggesting. I think there is a little more responsibility in the chamber, perhaps not demonstrated in his performance tonight, than he gives it credit for. He is suggesting that this chamber will disallow, every year, this important economic policy and allow the default cap to apply. The default cap only comes into play if the caps are disallowed, and it is consistent with the policy for which you, Senator, have signed up for.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you not think you would have the competency somewhere in those large vessels of academic acumen, which preside on the other side, a person who when drafting this legislation would have a default position and say, 'Of course, when we reach our five per cent we won't be going on into the default clause there'? It does not say that. There is nothing in here, except what is written and what is written is this: 'If this is disallowed, we keep on taking out 12 million units each year until we do not have an economy.' There is nothing that you have written in the legislation on this. All you are saying is that, in the future, you will have to presume that the chamber will be more competent than it is currently. And on that one, you are probably right, because anything could be more competent than what is written here.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened to the committee debate to date. I note with interest that, in spite of all the time that has passed since mid-July, when the exposure drafts of the bills came out and then the bills themselves—in spite of the hours and hours of the second reading debate, we have one amendment here from the coalition requiring a change of date, which just gives effect to their political strategy.

As a result of that, the Leader of the Opposition has encouraged laziness that is off the scale in terms of policy analysis. If you go out there and say to a political party: 'You actually don't need to grapple with the detail, you don't have to put your mind to the policy process—just go out there with the 30-second grab and make up anything you like, tell anybody anything you like at all and that will do.' That has allowed all of you on that side to engage in the biggest bout of laziness and drivel I have ever heard in the Senate. But now it has come back to bite you, because we are in the committee stage of this bill where you need to understand what this legislation is about.

I would like to take Senator Joyce back through this legislation, because he has not read it. The first thing is whether you accept the premise that the coalition leader sets out is the premise which the opposition holds—clearly, Senator Joyce does not, but some others over there might—and that is that climate change is real and that action will be taken on climate change. That is what the Leader of the Opposition says, when he is not saying that it is crap—that is what he says on the other days. Then he says that the coalition will take action on climate change to reduce emissions by five per cent by 2020.

And so the way this legislation is structured is to accept that as it passes, as of this time, Australia will always take action to reduce emissions consistent with the latest science, the evidence base that is coming out from around the world, consistent with the recommendations of the Climate Change Authority, which is going to be an independent authority which takes into account the latest science, which takes into account the targets of the government of the day—and in this case the target that the government has set is 80 per cent reduction by 2050. The climate authority will set out the trajectory by which we meet that target by setting out the first five years of emissions reductions and, thereafter, every year. After the climate authority has given that advice to the government of the day and the government of the day then moves by regulation to give effect to those trajectories, if the parliament disallows that, then, recognising the coalition's commitment to a reduction of five per cent by 2020 as an absolute minimum, that will apply and the cuts will be consistent with that until such time as the parliament gets back on track with recommendations, which are likely to be greater than that because it will be consistent with an 80 per cent reduction trajectory and, indeed, even more than that over time because the science will become clear to everyone, and also international action will be clear to everyone.

So for Senator Joyce to stand here this afternoon and show that he does not understand even the basics of this shows that he has just engaged in wallowing in laziness. It is a disgrace, actually. People listening to this debate will be horrified to think that this is the best the coalition can do—just wallow in ignorance. If you are serious about a five per cent reduction by 2020, you would know that we are already struggling in Australia to get the policies in place to meet even that, let alone what the Bali process sets out, which was that developed countries like ours should be cutting emissions to somewhere between 25 per cent and 40 per cent by 2020. So we are far off the baseline as it is. The logical consequence of what Senator Joyce was just saying is that he wants a guarantee that the default position is phased out at some point in the future when a five per cent reduction is achieved—that is, some time after 2020 presumably since, at this point, it is unlikely we will even get to the five per cent by 2020.

What we have had this afternoon is a complete insult to the parliament, and every minute that goes on from here will be a further insult to the parliament and to the people of Australia because what is on show here is total ignorance and total laziness; it is a total failure to engage the detail of the legislation and actually get into the scenario space. I think the people of Australia need to know that, after all this time, the best the coalition can do is bring in an amendment that says, 'You can have this after the next election; set a new date.' That is simply the rhetoric of the 30-second grab.

This is where it will be very interesting in the future. We all know that the great big new lie of Australian politics is that the coalition, if they ever do get into government, will repeal this legislation. We know that is a great big lie of Australian politics.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a fascinating thing because you see that the same people who are wallowing in policy laziness, wallowing in a mud heap of laziness, are the ones who have stood up here and believed their leader that he will repeal the bills. Every one of them has stood up here and done exactly what they are accusing the Prime Minister of doing. They are setting themselves up for a scenario where, if they ever get into government, if they do not repeal the bills everyone will come back and say: 'Treachery and betrayal. Look at what you all said, one after the other, day after day, hour after hour. You said you would repeal the bills and you haven't and you won't.' And why won't they? We have already seen it.

What happened to ARENA? I was fascinated, Mr Temporary Chairman, to see Mr Macfarlane in the other place say that the coalition now does not oppose ARENA. Let alone going to repeal it, they suddenly do not oppose it. I recall this because I announced ARENA in July, and out came the coalition saying: 'The Greens are holding the government to ransom. Shocking policy. Terrible business. This is an extension of white shoe brigade politics'—blah, blah, blah. Now, last night, Mr Macfarlane said, 'Well, the coalition actually think this is quite a good idea.' Well thank you very much! I am so pleased, Mr Macfarlane, that you have finally come around. Except that all these people here did not know that Mr Macfarlane was going to say in the lower house that they had changed their mind, they were not opposing it and they would not repeal it. So they are still here in their policy wallowing laziness saying, 'We'll be repealing the bills.'

Senator Boswell interjecting—

And they are still over there. Apparently Senator Boswell still does not know that the coalition is not opposing the ARENA bills let alone is not going to repeal them. Fancy that! They still have not worked that out. That is another one. So already we have had the Carbon Farming Initiative, with 13 hours in this place of how terrible it was going to be for rural and regional Australia, and that it was going to be the worst thing ever. Then they forgot to tell their senators up here that on the third reading down there they got up in a wimpy little voice and said, 'Actually, we're not going to repeal the Carbon Farming Initiative.' This was after hours of saying what was wrong with it and that it was going to do absolutely shocking things across rural Australia, but suddenly they are not going to repeal it.

Then we get ARENA. They not only announced that they are not repealing it; they are not even opposing it. They have suddenly realised that this is a good idea. That is two of the bills already that they have changed their minds on. The oath in blood has become so anaemic that it is now subject to laser treatment. It will be removed altogether very shortly, this oath in blood, because we are seeing it erode as we stand here and speak. What I am loving about the contributions from over there is that I am thinking, 'You wait; all of these quotes are going to be out there in 12 months time as all the industries around Australia start engaging the bills,' which they are already doing now. They know it will be law by 1 July.

Look at the Food and Grocery Council. They are a classic. They were out there initially saying, 'Food prices are going to go up shockingly.' They put out a report based on the old CPRS, not based on this legislation, not based on Treasury modelling. Out came Kate Carnell, former Liberal leader in the ACT, absolutely bashing it and saying, 'Increase in price of food.' The Leader of the Opposition, wallowing in the lazy pool, just took the Kate Carnell line and went from one end of Australia to the other talking about food prices increasing. Then the legislation went through. What happened after that? The Food and Grocery Council went to get some consultancy done. Out they came and said, 'Actually, food prices to consumers are not going to go up as part of the carbon pricing scheme.' After the legislation had gone through, the Food and Grocery Council outcome was, 'No, the food prices are not going to go up,' but, in the policy laziness wallow, the opposition were so busy wallowing in the hole they did not even realise that the Food and Grocery Council had come out and said that prices would not rise. There was the Leader of the Opposition speaking to them yesterday, repeating all the lies about food going up that the opposition had spun into the arena, only they did not realise that the Food and Grocery Council had actually changed their mind on food prices going up.

This is going to happen week in, week out, because all of these companies, all of these umbrella bodies, are now wriggling all over the place to reposition themselves to engage and try to get more benefits out of the package as it currently stands. They are starting to engage the policy detail. They are starting to realise that there is $150 million that they can access with their food processing plants and the like. They are changing their position, while the laziness on the policy side is such that the opposition have nothing to say—nothing to say on the detail—just lots and lots and lots of the same 30-second grabs. But they do not work in the committee stage.

So, if you have amendments, bring them forward. This is the time to deal with them now. We need more than just a date change. What are your amendments to this emissions trading scheme? What are they? Bring them down here and let us actually debate the detail of those amendments, or else just go back to your policy vacuum. Just go back to wallowing in your big, lazy hole. It is going to bury you, because you will not repeal these bills. Business will not allow you to repeal these bills. What is more, as this becomes law and business engages with it and the pressure comes on not to repeal the bills, you are going to find yourselves in an extraordinary position, because you will not be able to go into the next election with that policy position. The problem for your leader is that he has hung himself out on that particular issue. The real question is going to be: how are you going to get out of the mess you have got yourselves into as the country starts to take on this legislation and people really engage with how they are going to develop it and work with it?

Far from imagining that there is any kind of merit in an argument that says a default position continues indefinitely and it needs to have some sunset clause, there will be no sunset clause, in the sense that this country has made a decision to reduce emissions ad infinitum into the future, consistent with the science. That means there is no longer an option for Senator Joyce and the other denialists on that side of the house to pretend that we are not going to take action on climate change. We are. Let us hear your specific amendments.

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

I am sad that I will have to disappoint the minister, because I was going to ask the minister some questions, but after the contribution we just had from that representative of this Labor-Greens government I have to make a few observations in relation to that. The representative from the Labor-Greens government just now insulted the Senate. The representative from the Labor-Greens government showed the dictatorial tendencies that are coming from this Labor-Greens government.

Because we are asking questions about a significant change that this government wants to impose on the Australian economy, because we want to scrutinise 1,000 pages of legislation, because we think the government should explain why it wants to impose a carbon tax which will push up the cost of everything, which will make Australia less competitive internationally, which will cost jobs, which will reduce real wages, which will just shift emissions overseas, which will make manufacturers in China, emitting more, more competitive than even the most environmentally efficient business here in Australia—because we want to ask questions about this—Senator Milne, representing this Labor-Greens administration, is saying that we are wasting the Senate's time. And here is the best one. Because we have the novel approach where we say that people across Australia deserve a say on fundamental economic change like this before a government proceeds with it, because we say that this legislation should not be allowed to come into effect until the Australian people have had an opportunity to have their say, somehow that is a 'lazy' amendment.

Let me say this to you, Senator Milne: there is nothing lazy about respecting the views and aspirations of the Australian people. There is nothing lazy about engaging in a democratic debate that is honest, upfront and transparent in the lead-up to an election. This Labor-Greens government is treating the Australian people with absolute contempt. When you have a Prime Minister like Ms Gillard, who goes to an election and gives the most emphatic commitment that any Prime Minister can make—that is, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—only to turn around after the election, under pressure from the Greens political party, to say, 'Yes, there will be a carbon tax under the government I lead,' we know that this is a government that is treating the Australian people with absolute contempt. And we know why this government is treating the Australian people with absolute contempt: because that is the only way that the Labor Party can cling on to power.

We know that, after all the debates that have taken place in this chamber and in other places around Australia, the Australian people now well understand that the carbon tax will do nothing to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The people across Australia well understand that the carbon tax is not effective action on climate change. I know that many people on the inside of the Labor Party understand that the carbon tax is not effective action on climate change, and many people on the inside of the Labor Party understand that the carbon tax will hurt ordinary Australians. I know that many people on the inside of the Labor Party understand that very well, but they are stuck. Because their Prime Minister went out there and made an announcement on 24 February this year to say that there will be a carbon tax—an announcement where she had deputy prime minister Senator Bob Brown standing by her side in the prime ministerial courtyard—they now know that they are stuck. For as long as there is a Prime Minister Gillard, they are stuck.

Here we have this Green tail wagging the Labor dog. We have had this conversation before, because this Labor dog is no longer in charge of running the country. This Labor dog is being wagged by the Green tail. Let me make this prediction, because here we have Senator Milne saying that the coalition would not rescind the carbon tax after the next election. Let me make it very clear, Senator Milne. The coalition will rescind the carbon tax. If you are successful in passing this carbon tax through the parliament against the express and explicit wishes of the Australian people, if you are successful in passing this bad carbon tax through the parliament even though it is not in our national interest, if you are successful in passing this carbon tax through this parliament even though it will push up the cost of everything, make Australia less competitive, cost jobs and reduce real wages without doing anything to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, we will rescind it.

Let me make it very clear. The next election will be a referendum on the carbon tax. The next election will be a referendum on whether the Australian people want this bad tax or whether they do not. Looking at the evidence out there, I suspect that the judgment is in and I know that Senator Milne knows that too, which is why the Greens are trying to use every single procedural trick in the book to ram this legislation through, to minimise scrutiny, to keep secret all of the information that could expose the many flaws in this legislation.

Let me make this prediction. If we win the next election, which will have been a referendum on the carbon tax, every single Labor senator and every single Labor member of the House of Representatives will rush to the side where the new government sits to vote with us to rescind the carbon tax. Opposition leader Bill Shorten will impose surgery on that red Labor dog. We will make sure that that green tail is amputated from the red Labor dog. There is absolutely no way that the future opposition leader Bill Shorten will continue to allow—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Temporary Chairman: we are in the committee stage and I wonder which provision of the bill concerns a dog and the state of its tail, which Senator Cormann is addressing. We have had many hours of discussion of dogs, fleas and ticks and the like. We did that in the second reading stage, and that highlights the policy laziness we have already been through. Now we are having another dose. At this stage, we ought to be discussing the provisions of the legislation. I would ask Senator Cormann to point out which provisions of the bill he is talking about in this rant, which is reminiscent of a second reading contribution and not a committee stage contribution.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, while we are considering all the bills cognately and that therefore means we have a wide and robust discussion, you should draw your remarks to the legislation.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course my remarks are entirely relevant to the legislation. I note that Labor-Green government senators are very touchy about this particular aspect. Here we have Senator Milne who, in her contribution during the committee stage of this bill, five minutes ago made assertions as to what the coalition may or may not do after the next election. I am talking about the amendment which Senator Milne was talking about, which is clearly on the table and has been put on the table by the coalition, an amendment which says that this legislation should not come into effect until after the next election so that the people of Australia can actually have a say before this bad tax is imposed on them, this bad tax which will do nothing to reduce global greenhouse emissions but which of course will impose significant sacrifices on them.

Let us be very clear. Talking about these 1,000 pages of legislation, it is one big dog's breakfast. I do not know which part of the dog's breakfast is the responsibility of Senator Milne and which part of it is the responsibility of Prime Minister Gillard but that is one big dog's breakfast. We know that we have a green tail wagging the red Labor dog, which is why we have this dog's breakfast of a carbon tax. We know it is a tax which many people on the inside of the Labor Party do not want.

In responding to Senator Milne's assertion that somehow we would not be rescinding this carbon tax, let me make it very clear. My expectation is that after the next election opposition leader Bill Shorten will rush as fast as he can to sit beside the next prime minister, Mr Abbott, to help rescind the carbon tax. In reflecting on what might happen after the next election, let me make another analogy. I have been quite amused during this debate as the Labor-Green government senators have voted gag after gag to guillotined debate, to prevent proper scrutiny through the committee process and so on.

I have been intrigued because we have had various senators say, 'That's what you did with Work Choices. You should be used to this.' That is a great approach! That worked really well for us, did it not? I cannot believe that as a government you have not learnt from our mistakes and that you are going down the exact same path. We have learnt from our mistakes. We recognise that what we did with Work Choices was wrong. We recognise that the processes we followed were wrong, but look at the Labor-Green senators. They are trying to justify why they are moving gag after gag, why they are voting to guillotined debate. They are justifying it by saying, 'That's what you did with Work Choices.' Good luck to you, I say.

You keep treating the Australian people with absolute contempt. You keep pushing the carbon tax down their throats, which you know they do not want. That is the crux of it. That is why Senator Milne is so offended by our amendment which would have the effect of giving the Australian people an opportunity to have a say. You say it is important economic reform, you say it is in our national interest, you say it is that the best thing since sliced bread. You say it is going to solve all of the errors of the world, that all the floods will stop, all the droughts will stop, the climate will cool and there will be no more rising sea levels. If it is so good, why are you so scared to give the Australian people an opportunity to have their say?

The reason you want to do whatever you can to take this to an election is that you know that the Australian people do not want a carbon tax. The reason the Australian people do not want this carbon tax is that they know it is bad policy. They know it will do nothing to reduce emissions. They know that you want to impose significant sacrifices on them, sacrifices which are not going to make a difference. Quite frankly, that is cruel. That is absolutely cruel. That is why, before the last election, the Prime Minister thought it was necessary for her to give a commitment that there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads. She knew that this was about as popular as the plague.

Throughout the last parliament we had the debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. People need to remember the reason the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme did not get through this parliament is the both coalition and the Greens voted against it. Not just the coalition, but the coalition and the Greens voted against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Let me make something else very clear: the coalition voted against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme when Malcolm Turnbull was the leader and when Tony Abbott was the leader. We voted against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme twice.

The reason we first voted against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme between June and August 2009 was—

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you believed in climate change! When you believed in ETS! Tell us what has changed, Mathias. Your leader does not believe in climate change, that's what.

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

that we said it was in our national interest to wait until the Copenhagen conference before making a final decision. We needed to know what our trade competitors in other parts of the world were going to do before we could make a judgment on whether it was in our national interest to impose a price on carbon in Australia.

Back at the time Senator Thistlethwaite was quoting, in 2007 when I gave my first speech, the overwhelming expectation was that there would be a comprehensive agreement on pricing emissions. That was the expectation in 2007. We now know that Copenhagen was an absolute failure. The then Prime Minister Rudd had some colourful language to describe what happened in Copenhagen. It would be unparliamentary for me to repeat how then Prime Minister Rudd described what the Chinese did to the Copenhagen talks on climate change. I would not want to expose myself to the wrath of the chair by quoting the words used by the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. There were some little creatures and some natural activity involved, which I would not want to describe in terms too technical, because that would be offensive.

We know that Copenhagen was an absolute failure, and in Copenhagen Australia's national interests changed. When it became clear that the US would not go ahead with a cap-and-trade scheme—which they will not—and when it became clear that China, India and a range of other countries that we compete with would not be going down this path, there was a need to change track. That was the whole reason why, under Malcolm Turnbull's leadership, we voted against the carbon tax in July-August 2009. That is why we thought we needed to vote against it again in December 2009. It was the responsible course of action. Once it became obvious that Copenhagen was such a failure, we needed to make a judgment on how Australia could make the best contribution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions without putting its economy at risk and without imposing excessive costs on Australian working families.

This government does not care about any of this. It was really telling to listen to the contribution by Senator Milne; clearly she must think that elections are a troublesome interference to her pursuing her ideal vision for the world. All of us scrutinising what the government is doing is clearly a very cumbersome interference to Senator Milne being able to get 100 per cent of what she wants irrespective of what people across Australia think. That is not how democracy works. Elections do matter, and on this very bad carbon tax, which we were promised we would not get, the Australian people deserve a say.

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

First, I make the point to Senator Cormann that his position on carbon pricing has been entirely inconsistent. In his first speech, in August 2007, he said:

Climate change is a challenge we are facing as a global community. If we take a sensible and considered approach to meeting that challenge, Australia can play a pivotal role in facilitating the production of clean energy for the world.

He also said:

The government’s recent announcement of a national emissions trading scheme, including offsets for trade exposed industries, is a positive and sensible approach …

More importantly, he has made the point on a number of occasions that Copenhagen changed everything. I want to give him a reminder about history and, in that context, a reminder about mandate: he was elected to this place on the policy of pricing carbon. He was elected to this place on the policy of putting a price on carbon through an emissions trading scheme. I remind him that Prime Minister Howard's Shergold report specifically contemplated a world in which there was not a fully developed, global agreement on pricing carbon.

Perhaps Senator Cormann would like to consider this quote:

A comprehensive global mechanism will take years to develop and Australia has decided not to wait for this to emerge and last month I announced that the Government will establish an emissions trading regime for Australia based on a cap and trade model. Our goal is to begin in 2011 subject to relevant design issues being properly completed.

…   …   …

In the years to come, it will provide a model for other nations to follow.

Being among the first movers on carbon trading in this region will bring new opportunities and we intend to grasp them.

That was an address by John Howard to the Melbourne Press Club in July 2007. Let us put to bed this lie that is perpetuated by those opposite that somehow their policy was to wait for a global agreement. Your then Prime Minister and leader, under which most of you served for a number of years, made it very clear that you were not waiting for a comprehensive global mechanism. Every time you make that proposition, every time you say that, you are seeking to mislead the Australian people, because that was not your policy under Prime Minister Howard and it was not your policy in this chamber when you voted against a carbon pricing mechanism because you were worried about whether or not you would get on the front bench under Tony Abbott. So let's be really clear here about people's political positions. Those opposite supported a carbon price when they thought it was popular, their Liberal Prime Minister supported an emissions trading scheme when he thought he needed to, and they did it explicitly without a comprehensive global agreement. This is simply another lie designed to mislead.

I am not sure that Senator Cormann actually asked me anything. I think it was the same bluster and negativity we always hear from the opposition under this leader. This is a debate that is not easy—I accept that. I accept that this is not an easy debate; it is not an easy reform. But sometimes the responsibility of leaders and members of this place is to do what is right for the country's future even if it is not easy. Instead, what we have is more bluster and more negativity from the opposition. I have to wonder: why is it that all you do is say no? Why is it? You do not put forward any positive policy in any area for the country.

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

It's bad policy. You should always say no to bad policy.

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

Senator Cormann says he does not like this policy. He is entitled to that view. Amazingly, he used to support pricing carbon. But you know what? He says no to everything. He says no to a stimulus package to support jobs; he says no to offshore processing because he is going to vote with Bob Brown. They just say nothing but no. This is a debate about something far more important than that.

Madam Temporary Chairman, it would be good if at some point we could actually get to debating the bills. There has been a lot of discussion over the many years, since 2007, this has been on the political agenda. These are substantive bills. I am happy to have a discussion about them. As yet we still do not have an amendment moved. The coalition are not interested, are they, in moving their amendment at any point and having it voted on? I invite them to do that. That is what the committee stage is for.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning in the Senate, by way of interjection in the debate on the curtailment of scrutiny of the complex carbon tax bills, I made some comparison between GetUp! and the Hitler Youth. I want to take this opportunity to unreservedly apologise for any offence taken at my remarks by the Jewish community. As for GetUp!, their attempts to stifle debate on the carbon tax in the Senate, through the Greens, demonstrates their political agenda very clearly.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendment, because the amendment gives effect to people having a say—

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

The amendment has not been moved.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can support the amendment.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Boswell, there is no amendment yet before the chair. You are at liberty to speak to a circulated amendment, but do be aware that it has not yet been moved and therefore it is not before us.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chairman, whether or not the amendment has been moved does not really matter. In effect, the Australian public have not been able to have a say on whether they want a carbon tax or whether they do not. If you look at the polls you see that around 60 per cent say they do not want a bar of it, yet it is going to be forced down their neck whether they like it or not. It is a very disappointing day. No-one can accuse me of ever supporting this. I was the first out opposing it, and Senator Wong would probably agree with that.

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

No, I think it was Barnaby. You were ahead of Barnaby?

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was ahead of Barnaby on it. I opposed it because I had been involved in business before I came in here. I was a manufacturer's agent who had to sell a product to keep 300 people working at the factory benches. If I did not sell, they did not have a job. That is why I knew this was one of the worst things that could ever come into Australia. I know what happens in these factories. I have been there. I was there for 20 years, striving to get my product out the door in competition with other manufacturers and in competition with imports. I knew what it was like. So the moment I saw this I thought it was just a disaster, and my worst fears have come to fruition.

What the Greens senator said shows me that she has a greater depth of knowledge on the subject than Senator Wong, and I suspect that is because it is the Greens' legislation. It is their pride and joy, their great claim. Senator Brown will go over to Durban in South Africa in a couple of weeks and he will parade around and say: 'Hey, look what the Greens have got. Look what we've done.' That will be the Greens' claim to fame. Why the Labor Party has gone along with it, I will never know. I will never understand how you can get cut to pieces, get flogged, lose your vote down to 26 per cent, cut to pieces by the Greens and still go along with it. I went through this with One Nation, and the only way you will ever come out of it is to fight back, not go along like a bunch of tame pussy cats. That is what you are—you are captive to the Greens. You have a fight out of this. It will be 25 per cent next, then 24. The Greens will be going from 13 per cent to 14, 15, 16. They are eating you, and you are too stupid to understand. When I came into this place and I looked across there at the government of the time, there were some good men in it. One was Peter Walsh. He just finds this so appalling. Senator Button would never have let this happen on his watch. There were doctors, there were solicitors and there was even—would you believe it—a waterside worker who had actually picked up a tool in his life and done something physical. Now we have a bunch of Labor Party union hacks, who have no experience of the real world, trying to run a country. None of them have ever picked up a tool in their life.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Senator Thistlethwaite interjecting—

And that is about as far as you would go, digging a rose garden up. That is about as far as it would go.

I am opposed to this legislation because it is founded on lie after lie after lie. Senator Milne comes in here and quotes the Australian Food and Grocery Council and says everything is sweet. Well, Senator Milne, I disagree with your politics but I have never found you to be dishonest before. If you are going to quote something go and get an accurate quote. I will read it to you. It says:

… the Australian Food and Grocery Council … estimates that the scheme will cost the industry the equivalent of 4.4 per cent of operating profits … costs incurred as a result of the carbon pricing scheme … the players themselves, reducing their profitability and, in some cases, making them less competitive in domestic or export markets against players who do not face the same embedded carbon costs in their supply chains.

If you are making eight per cent profit, you lose 4.4 per cent—you have lost half your profit. If you are making 4.5 per cent or, say, five per cent on turnover—not a bad profit; it is not good but it is reasonable—you are almost in a minus situation. So, Senator Milne, do not come in here and misquote the facts. You do have some credibility, but when you do that you shoot yourself to pieces and you make yourself look almost as stupid as Senator Thistlethwaite.

One thing about Senator Thistlethwaite is this. There is an old adage in this place—and you have not been around long enough, Senator, to know it—that says, 'Don't open your mouth. Let people think you are a fool, because when you open your mouth you prove them right.' You are completely out of your class. You might improve in another five years here—doubtful—and you will probably translate from the middle bench up to the back bench. I think that is where you will probably end up.

Madam Temporary Chair, I will tell you why this is wrong. It is a fraud. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on Australia—'Put money in and everyone's going to get wealthy'. Well, let us look at some of the fraud. We are told that sea levels will rise. Sea levels have risen 32 centimetres in a hundred years—yes, they are rising—but to make the jump that they will go up 1.1 metres or two metres is a blatant, absolute lie. I have checked this with BOM. I have made speeches on it. I have checked it with BOM and anyone who wants to challenge it can go and look at my speeches.

One of the other lies is that we are going to get more countries on board and the Third World too. Burma, the Philippines, Indonesia, China and Russia are all going to be there by 2016, we are told. What a blatant lie. You know, Minister, and everyone in the world knows that you cannot penalise Third World countries and ask them to pay more for their food, more for their accommodation, more for their electricity—and most of them do not have it anyway. If you tell me that the assumption that everyone is going to be on board by 2016 is right, Senator Wong, you will be declared. You know it is not right. You know it is impossible to achieve.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Boswell, please direct your comments through the chair.

Unless everyone gets on board on this it will not fly.

Another great lie is that only 500 polluters will pay—we can all live happily ever after because householders will receive lots of cheques, so it is not going to affect anyone because the polluters are going to pay. How can that work? How can that lie be perpetrated by the Labor Party and the Greens? Everyone is going to pay. For people with households, electricity will be going up by around 10 per cent, so you throw a few bob in for renewable energy. But where it is going to hit—and hit like a rocket—is industry, because electricity prices are going to go up by 30 per cent, or about a third, for industry. I had dinner the other night with a person called Trevor St Baker—I do not think he will mind me using his name—who owns ERM Power. I have known him for a long while. He has made a lot of money and he has created a lot of wealth because he owns a lot of generators. He told me about this. All I can say is that there a lot of people out there, a lot of people in industry, a lot of farmers and a lot of dairy farmers who have coldrooms and who think, 'Oh, we'll just put 10 per cent on. We'll be all right. It's going to be hard. It's going to cost six grand but it probably won't break us.' But it is not going to cost that. I advise everyone to go out there and talk to an electricity consultant, who will tell them what it is going to cost.

But the worst thing, Madam Temporary Chair, is this: this has never ever been modelled by anyone else but Treasury and Treasury are not allowed to release the model. You know that is right, Senator Wong. You took it on notice five times as to whether you would release the model or not—and you know you will not release the model, because the model is based on the assumption that the rest of the world is going to be in by 2016. That is crazy. It cannot be. The other day we saw a representative of Canada, a country roughly equivalent to us, saying: 'Not in the world! We just went out there and we ran a campaign and we wiped the opposition out on it.' America is saying no thanks. The whole world is turning against it. But the fact that you will not release the model is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on this nation. Senator Cormann and I have tried and tried and tried. Mr Ergas writes:

It has taken three months and 10 hours of questioning in Senate committees. Ultimately, however, the facts do emerge. And they did last Monday.

…   …   …

... Treasury's most senior officials have persistently claimed the opposite. In the Senate Select Committee ... Treasury said 'these models are publicly available.'

I asked the question:

So, if Professor Ergas were to go with a cheque in hand it would it be available to him?

Ms Quinn said yes, it would be. Everyone has tried it. Brian Fisher wrote a letter and said he had listened to Ms Quinn's statements and had gone out and tried to buy the modelling, but he could not. Mr McKibbin has also said he wants the modelling, but no one has ever been able to access it.

By 2020 we will be adding $33 billion to the cost of doing business and by 2050 it will be $1 trillion. Who knows what it will be—no-one has produced the modelling. Mr Phillip Glyde belled the cat when he said that no-one can do the modelling—there is not enough information out there for a third party to do it. Ms Quinn also said that modelling had not been released since 2007. That was well before the carbon tax was proposed. So, Senator Wong, don't you ever accuse anyone of dishonesty, because you have been dishonest. You have been totally dishonest—you have avoided, you have ducked, you have dived, you have weaved and you have never produced the modelling.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN : Senator Boswell, you will withdraw your unparliamentary remark.

What was my unparliamentary remark? What do you want me to withdraw?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am sure you know the standing orders well enough. You are not allowed to reflect on the honesty of a member of this place.

This is a very sad day for Australia and if I have to withdraw I do it with great reluctance.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Boswell, you have not withdrawn the remark.

I will withdraw it because I have one minute and 18 seconds to get the rest of my message out. How can any government stand before millions of Australians and say this is not going to cost them anything, or will cost very little, when no-one knows what it is costing because no-one has the modelling? McKibbin wants it, Fisher wants it, Ergas wants it and the peak bodies want it because they want to know what they are going to be up for. But no-one has ever been able to get it and, Senator Wong, every time I have asked you or Senator Cormann has asked you or a number of other people have asked you, you have ducked and weaved and dived but you have never produced the modelling. I asked you five times the other day whether you would produce the modelling, and you said you would take it on notice. You are hiding the fact that this scheme cannot work. If it could work I could possibly have some support for it, but it cannot work—it never could work, and it cannot work because you cannot get the Third World in, because you will not get everyone there by 2016 and because you think it is just the 500 major polluters. The whole argument is built on dishonesty. (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me for saying so, but a student going through this evening's Hansard in the future might well think that Senator Boswell had come in from another planet to give his 15-minute message, as he called it. I know Senator Boswell is the longest serving senator in this place and I know that therefore he would have a very long history in and understanding of the various climate change policies of previous coalition and Labor governments. What he has said this evening does not demonstrate that understanding—it shows that he does not remember what happened under John Howard's leadership, that he does not take into account the fact that it was under John Howard's leadership, some 12 years ago, that this whole review of an emissions trading scheme for Australia was first discussed.

Senator Boswell made very clear tonight that he does not believe the science, that he does not believe in climate change and that he does not want to do anything about it. That seems to be the view of the coalition in general—except perhaps for one member of the coalition, Malcolm Turnbull. It must be very interesting in the coalition party room to have Malcolm Turnbull and Senator Boswell come together on this issue, because they are worlds apart. One is from another planet, and the other is the only member of the coalition to actually get this issue.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I hope this is a proper point of order.

Of course it is. They are no further apart than Rudd and Gillard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Singh.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear that those senators opposite are ignoring the science on this, and that is why we have from them only one amendment, which relates only to a date change. There are no amendments to do with the actual detail of the bills.

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

How many amendments did you move on the GST? Do you remember that?

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjects—the senator who once believed in climate change. I encourage Senator Cormann to go back and read his first speech. In fact, I encourage the entire Australian public to read Senator Cormann's first speech to see that he once believed in this issue that has so much scientific backing. He comes into this place when we are debating the bills in committee and does nothing about addressing the provisions or the clauses of the bill at all.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've got some serious work to do.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Heffernan, that is unparliamentary. Come to order.

But we have got serious work to do.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have not shown any serious work so far. Those members opposite have not shown any serious work in relation to these bills.

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Singh, sit down for a moment. Senators shall not wander the chamber interjecting. Please desist or I shall have to evict you from the chamber.

I think the wandering of Senator Heffernan shows again that they are not on this planet when it comes to the issue of climate change and the bills before us. I want to address the fact that we are in committee. I have some understanding of this. Before my time in this place I was a minister in another place and I know what it is like to be in committee. That is where you actually debate the bills. It is where you debate the clauses within the bills. It is where you propose amendments. You look at the provisions of the bills and you scrutinise and go through those provisions. What have those opposite done so far? Absolutely none of that. You are lazy. You do not understand the bills in front of you because you do not believe in climate change to start with, except for Senator Cormann of course, who has backflipped all over the place—he did believe it then he did not believe it and so on. In fact, you have dumbed down this issue so much that your own leader, Tony Abbott, does not even understand the element of carbon. How did he refer to carbon dioxide? Invisible, odourless, weightless and tasteless. That shows you the degree to which the coalition understands the issue—

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Madam Temporary Chair, a point of order: I accept, as you know, a certain robustness in debate—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's have some accuracy though.

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

If accuracy were required, many people here would be silent. I would ask you, Madam Temporary Chair, to keep some semblance of order while the senator is on her feet.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: the speaker, the former minister who knows how these things work, has clearly explained to you, Madam Temporary Chair, how this debate should be proceeding now—that is, there should be questions of the minister and answers. Can you draw this speaker to order, tell her that she is supposed to be asking questions and ask her to sit down if she cannot. She has told you how you should be ruling.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order. Senator Singh, you may continue, but before you do I remind the chamber to maintain this as an orderly debate.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been in committee now for nearly three hours and the opposition have asked one question in that time, maybe two if we are lucky. For Senator Macdonald to make a point of order, when it is up to the opposition to ask the questions in this committee time—

Opposition senators interjecting—

You have had three hours so far. You have asked one or maybe two questions. Senator Birmingham has not even moved his amendment. He has one tiny little amendment to change a date and he still has not even moved it. Maybe he wants to string it out because it is the only thing they have going over there.

The business community, which I thought those opposite cared about, want certainty when it comes to transforming the Australian economy into a clean energy economy. That is what these bills do. That is what the clean energy package addresses. It provides that certainty to business. It provides certainty so that they can move and transform their businesses into that clean energy space, as so many other parts of the world are doing and have done, as so many other businesses in other parts of the world are doing and have done. The coalition would have us believe that, despite all the work Senator Wong has taken you through this time and previously in this place to do with the detail in the package, we are not moving Australia into a clean energy future, that in fact it is all just a big tax on individuals rather than a tax on 500 polluters. The fact that they continue to mislead the public shows that they have no care for the economics. They have no care for the fact that business are transferring to a clean energy economy. They have no care for the economics and no care for the social factors in relation to this bill.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chair, on a point of order: I ask her to withdraw that. Go back to my maiden speech. You are not going to accuse me of not caring, because I care as much as any person in—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Heffernan, that is not a point of order. Please sit down.

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Heffernan, there is no point of order. You no longer have the call. Senator Singh, continue.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it pleases Senator Heffernan, I will withdraw my statement that he does not care. I will take a moment sometime in my term in this place to read your first speech, Senator Heffernan, to see how much you do care. I will change my words. What the coalition have done thus far is focus on the politics, focus on the political point-scoring parts of a really important reform for Australia, a really important reform that makes us part of a world that is transforming into a clean energy economy. Rather than focus on the detail—and there is a lot of detail when it comes to a huge reform such as this—and rather than moving amendments or asking questions about the clauses in the bills, they have instead focused on the politics. They have focused on the things that will get them headlines. They are dumbing this down and the way that they do that is, for example, by making out that individuals will be paying a carbon tax, which is simply not true. The coalition know this. They have all the detail in this package of bills. They know that the big polluters will pay. The package of bills is introducing a carbon price mechanism to around 500 big polluters, not to individual households.

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

Your own modelling shows that people will pay. Who are they? Who are the big polluters?

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This dumbing down and the misleading information that the coalition continue to carry on with is sheer laziness and sheer political point-scoring. It shows that there is little care about this issue of climate change. The fact is that there is so much overwhelming science out there, which has been in place for some time now, asking us to act on this issue and telling us that, if we do not act, the cost for the economy will be even greater, Senator Cormann. But, despite that, you continue to ignore all that scientific evidence and continue to oppose. You prefer to play with politics than to play with real policy, real issues and things that are actually going to move this country forward and make a difference to the lives of many people.

I understand, to draw on the science, that some of the effects, such as sea level change, will come into being out of our lifetimes. But it is our duty and it is up to us to ensure that we lead the way for the next generation, for our kids and for their kids, that we leave this planet a better place, that we treat it better than we have been treating it up until now. Why? Because we know that we are damaging it if we do not do so, and we have a chance to turn that around. This is a chance to turn that around, to do what is right for our families, for our people and for our environment.

We are only here for a certain amount of time. We are only here in the Senate for a short amount of time, but we are privileged with a task, and that task is to ensure that we change things for the better for our people and for our environment. This is the time to do that. It is not the time to play politics, to get up and make another 15-minute speech about she said, he said and who said what. What is that going to do for anyone? How is that going to change anyone living in Australia in the future? It is not going to do anything for our environment, for our people, for our businesses. We on this side of the Senate, the Labor Party, take the issue of climate change seriously, and that is why we have acted. That is why we have put this package of bills through the House and before the Senate: to ensure that we move things and turn things around.

Having said that, 12 years ago, when you were in power, when you were in government, it seemed like you were going to do the same thing. But you conveniently forget that now because it does not suit you. It does not suit your politics.

Senator Back interjecting—

The rest of the world is acting. China, India, the EU and states of the United States are acting. It is incorrect to say that the rest of the world is not acting. They are acting. They are acting in a number of ways, and why? Because they know that certain parts of the world are not even going to be there in the future. Islands like Kiribati and Tuvalu are not even going to exist. What goes when they go? Not just the people who lived on them but their culture, their history. We, like all the other nations in the world, have the opportunity to do something about this, to turn it around. That is why those on this side of the chamber take this issue very seriously. This is not about buck-passing or politics, which is all that seems to come from those on the other side. There is a sense of laziness, of lying to the Australian people, of spreading misinformation, of just playing politics.

There is a lot of evidence from around the world that we do need to act on climate change. That is what we are doing. We are proud to be doing it. We are not proud to be doing it just because we are a Labor Party; we are proud to be doing it for our kids, for our families, for the rest of this nation. We want to ensure that whilst we are in government we do as much as we can to ensure that we turn around something that we have so much science on. We know that we have been impacting on our environment now for so long. The science is clear. The time to act is now. There is a clear consensus amongst the climate scientists that climate change is real, and that is why we are acting to reduce carbon pollution—because of the serious effects of climate change that we as humans have caused in part and will continue to cause unless we do something about reducing our carbon pollution in this country.

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

I will be very brief. My colleagues Senator Heffernan, Senator Macdonald and Senator Birmingham will have a whole series of questions, and I will have to leave my questions till Monday. But some comments were made that I want to make a brief observation about. Firstly I want to thank Senator Singh for encouraging people across Australia to read my first speech. It is a very good read and I commend it to people. The point I would make, though, about her assertions about our views back in 2007 on an emissions trading scheme in Australia is that the world has changed since then. The world changed in Copenhagen. The expectation in 2007 was that other countries around the world, such as the US, would have cap-and-trade schemes in place. As we progressed through 2008 and 2009 it became increasingly obvious that that would not happen.

I would encourage Senator Singh, Senator Wong and others to read every single comment I have made about an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax throughout 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. They are all consistent—and that is that it is not in Australia's national interest to impose a price on carbon when none of our trade competitors are likely to go down that path.

I will just close on this point. Senator Singh was just now making the assertion that China and India are taking all this action on climate change. I just thought I would refer Senator Singh to the Treasury modelling—it is a good reference document—to see what is right and what is wrong in the assertions made by the government. The Treasury modelling of the CPRS in 2008 told us that CO2 emissions in China would be 16.1 billion tonnes by 2020. Three years later the Treasury modelling in the context of the carbon tax told us that CO2 emissions in China by 2020 would be 17.9 billion tonnes. So in just three years the Labor government's expectation as to what will happen with emissions in China has gone up by 1.8 billion tonnes, which is three times as much as the whole of Australia puts out in a whole year. That is just the margin of error in the Treasury modelling between what Treasury expected would happen in China by 2020 back in 2008 and what Treasury now thinks will happen in China by 2020.

Finally, on the point relating to India, I strongly encourage Senator Singh to look at chart 3.1, and the footnote in particular, in the Treasury modelling where it actually makes the point that India is not included on this particular chart about regional contribution to mitigation action because 'its emission mitigation is zero compared to the baseline'. I do have a whole series of questions, but I will leave them until some of my colleagues have had a chance to ask questions.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to go on with too much political claptrap. Obviously this is part of a political deal which is designed to keep the government in government. I just have some questions about the actual tax. Minister, I think I have given you a bit of notice on this. In the train industry, for those who do not know, we are creating 60,000 new passenger journeys a week. The train lines, because of low technology and because we do not have the spectrum to run trains closer together, are at the absolute peak of their use without new technology to run closer trains. We have had an 18 per cent increase in passenger rail as opposed to a one per cent increase in car passenger journeys in the last few years. Why, Minister, have we included trains in the carbon tax and excluded cars and trucks?

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

I will make a number of points. There are the bills before the chamber and there is also the government's commitment to heavy on-road transport from 1 July 2014 which need to be factored into this discussion. It is the case in relation to fuel but, broadly, on-road use is out and off-road use, including domestic rail, is in.

I am advised that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has been provided with some advice about the likely impact of a carbon price on a range of transport modes and that the indicative additional cost per tonne per hundred kilometres travelled for rail will be about 4c under a $23 carbon price. So we are not talking about a massive impost.

The government has also made a commitment to bringing heavy on-road transport into the clean energy arrangements from 1 July 2014. That would provide the sort of competitive neutrality that I think the senator is advocating for. The government is a very strong supporter of rail. I would just remind the Senate that the government has injected some $1.2 billion into rail infrastructure through the Australian Rail Track Corporation and a range of projects to improve the reliability and competitiveness of the nation's railway network. This includes expanding the rail corridors connecting the Hunter Valley coalmines to the Port of Newcastle and a range of other projects, some of which are in Queensland. There is the Sydney to Brisbane line and so forth. These were part of the government's previous stimulus package. That is significant support for rail. Again, just in terms of the cost, the advice I have is that it will be about 4c per tonne per 100 kilometres.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will sharpen it up for you, Minister. It is about $100 million in extra costs to the train industry. I will point out that, despite these figures on the assistance to rail, the car industry and other industries have had far more assistance. We do build roads, but trains we ignore. I remind you that there are 60,000 new passenger journeys per week and yet we have decided to penalise trains. I do not have a tweeter to give me an answer on a computer like you do. So we can just take it that trains, which are environmentally friendly, will be told to go to hell as far as recognising them.

I will just go to another issue. As I understand it, agriculture is excluded. Until when is agriculture excluded?

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

I was just trying to get some other information because I think you mentioned urban passenger rail fares. I am advised that the estimate of the carbon price impact on a train fare from Penrith to Sydney city is about 3c. The government has indicated that agriculture is permanently excluded.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In future, just so it is recorded, will agriculture be excluded? On the credit or debit side, are we talking about credit or debit?

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

The government has already put forward its Carbon Farming Initiative and outlined that. I had not realised until Senator Milne spoke that the coalition was actually now supporting that. There you go; I had the missed that too. I am pleased to hear that. We have made our position on scoping very clear: as I have just outlined, it is that agriculture is excluded.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to agriculture, if you believe science, and all science has vagary, by 2050 there will be 9 billion people on the planet, 50 per cent of the planet will be poor for water, 1 billion people will be unable to feed themselves, 30 per cent of the productive land of Asia will have gone out of production, two-thirds of the world's population will be living in Asia, there will have been a doubling of the food task and possibly 1.6 billion people on the planet will be displaced. We now have a trading system proposed for carbon credits. Other than in Australia, where in the world will Australian industries be able to trade carbon credits for trees?

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

I will see if I can get some further advice, but broadly these are matters that markets will develop—he wants to speak again.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, I am not sure whether you are actually seeking the call at times, you are half up and down.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just a bit toey.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't be so toey, Senator Heffernan. If you want the call stand up nice and straight and I will give you the call.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

God bless you, Temporary Chairman, I am passionate about this. You are going to have my major speech before the end of the night. We are discussing what could be one of the world's greatest frauds. We will be able to trade carbon credits for trees in Australia. Given that the legislation is before the chamber, I want to know where else in the world can you trade tree carbon credits for Australian credit use?

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

What I was trying to explain is that there may be a distinction here between the voluntary market and the Kyoto market. Carbon farming credits which are Kyoto compliant would be available for purchase by entities outside Australia. Obviously, whether or not those permits would be able to be remitted under their domestic system would be a matter for their domestic legislation. Non-Kyoto compliant permits might be purchased on the voluntary market. There is a voluntary market. Obviously, this is still a developing market—we acknowledge that—but we have provided a significant amount of funding through the package before the parliament to assist landowners to participate in that market.

On the issue of food security—I think you and I have discussed this before in my previous portfolio—these are obviously choices that landowners make. One would assume, if the scenario that you outlined is correct, that the prices paid for food would be significantly more than the sorts of prices you would get for carbon abatement. I am not sure if the policy proposition you are putting is—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was just a bit of cover.

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

All right, that was a bit of cover.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just letting you know that I know the facts. The legislation is before the parliament but the parliament does not know, from your answer, where in the rest of the world we will be able to trade carbon credits from to bring them back for credit use in Australia from trees. I would have thought that was a fairly fundamental thing to know. However, you say we are rushing at this and there have been no questions—we are getting questions with no answers.

In Australia there is a recent phenomenon for which there is $2 billion available—for the likes of the purchase by RM Williams of a cattle station and the sale by Allan Myers of another station, both in the Northern Territory, for carbon accreditation. What is the model that is being used to prove up the credits on those properties under this carbon legislation? If a bushfire goes across half the property, as they do out in that country—there has just been a 2½ million hectare fire in the centre of Australia—what is the model they are going to use? I ask that because on the PR side of this they are saying that these properties will make more money as sit-down properties for carbon credits than they will producing food?

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

I will get some advice on that. I am not sure I understand the question precisely. I will see if the officials understood it a little better than I. I also have some information about the voluntary market, which I can provide to you, about a recent transaction in relation to Japan.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over a long period of time, Senator Heffernan and I have had a series of discussions about this issue, about the credibility of tree plantings and the like. We share a common abhorrence of managed investment schemes. I know that Senator Heffernan will be pleased to know that we have managed investment schemes on the negative list as far as the Carbon Farming Initiative is concerned, so that they cannot have credits.

Senator Heffernan asked about where in the world would an Australian entity—let us assume a polluting, coal fired power station, for example—would trade after 2015. When we go to flexible trading, this scenario may occur where a liable entity may purchase 50 per cent of its liability with overseas permits. The issue here is that, recognising that the market is immature, recognising that many countries have varying degrees of rigour as to how they would assess and accredit such a thing, we have specifically said that not only is there a quantitative limit to the amount of permits they can be bought overseas—as in 50 per cent—but there is also a qualitative limit. That means that there will be rules put in such that one cannot purchase anything that does not meet a high standard, like the gold standard, in these markets. So you may have some companies or countries making available credits on the international market that would not be acceptable to be purchased into our scheme if they do not meet that high standard. That goes to the issue of rigour that you are talking about.

As to your second question, about the property south of Alice Springs, in relation to RM Williams and so on, the issue there is that there has to be a methodology that is developed and accepted before credits can be generated. My understanding of how this will work is that, for any particular activity for which you wish to generate carbon credits—like protecting native vegetation or enhancing carbon in the landscape or whatever—before the amount of credits you may be able to sell into a compliance market can be calculated, you have to go through the process of getting the methodology accredited. That is what we are going through. There have been very few methodologies accredited to date. One that has been accredited is savanna burning, and I am very pleased to say that that is occurring, because that will lead to good outcomes for Indigenous communities in the short term and we will see permanent employment and real benefits flowing into Indigenous communities because of that. We did hear on the news at one point that camel culling had already been accredited. In fact, it had not. A proposition had been put forward to accredit camel culling. There were lots of problems found with that, and that is the point of establishing an assessment—so that this can actually happen. So, in answer to your question, there has to be a methodology developed in order to do this.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the government for that answer! I think it is curious that we have lent serious money—millions of dollars—for property purchases through the program, yet at this point we do not know how they are going to gain their credits. These are million-acre properties, where all sorts of storms cross and something will grow here but it will not grow 30 miles down the road, where a fire will go through. We are kidding ourselves that somehow we are going to get carbon credits that are tradeable on millions of acres of country, where half of it might have been wiped out and half of it might have feed that is a foot high because a thunderstorm has gone through. God help us!

That leads me to my next question, Minister. The legislation is before the parliament now and we are expected to understand it in a couple of days. I cannot get any answers to very basic questions now, although I appreciate the assistance of Senator Milne. She, like me, has always had a bit of a passion for looking after Australia and Mother Earth.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a Greens-Liberal alliance!

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My transfer fee is too high; they can't afford me! I note in the press, and from overseas press, that there is serious fraud in Europe in the carbon market. I note that the Australian Federal Police have already moved to set up a fraud squad for the carbon market. Could the minister, given the legislation is before the parliament, explain why the government has found it necessary to already start a fraud squad for the carbon market?

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

Because we are very intent on ensuring that this is a well-regulated, well-functioning market. We want to roll this out competently and carefully, and that is what we intend to do.

I have some information on the bushfire issue, and then I also have some responses to a previous question. I am advised that, in the case of bushfire reducing carbon stored in a Carbon Farming Initiative project, the project proponent will not be penalised. They will be allowed to re-establish the carbon over time. When the carbon is restored to its previous level, the project proponent can then begin to earn additional credits.

In relation to your question about where people will be able to sell credits—these are Kyoto compliant, obviously—the legislation that we hope will pass this place will create a market. I accept that there are still developments in markets in the international context in terms of some of the issues that have been raised, but the legislation before the parliament creates a domestic market.

I would also say to the senator that there are already some commercial companies engaging in this. There was an announcement in 2010, after the announcement of the CFI, of an agreement between Carbon Conscious Ltd and Perenia Pty Ltd which involved Carbon Conscious planting around 50,000 to 70,000 mallee eucalypt trees in marginal Western Australian farming land and delivering AAUs to Perenia in line with tree growth under the CFI. They agreed a price.

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

Because this indicates how the market moves. This came on top of a deal which was announced by Carbon Conscious in 2009 with Origin Energy and BP Singapore, worth up to $169 million and $2.5 million respectively, designed for the CPRS.

Senator Heffernan interjecting —

I quite like Senator Heffernan, but he has had a few goes, so I am going to have a go back. The thing that seems to be escaping you, Senator, is that this is the creation of a market and that markets will respond to the pricing signal. It seems extraordinary that it is the Labor Party and the Greens who are understanding the effect of a price signal on the behaviour of private sector companies and individuals. People will respond to the price signal. That is why it is important to get that signal into the economy, so that you can get the investment in the right places.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question relates to one that the minister took on notice a short while ago relating to item 7.2.3 in the final document of the Clean Energy Future proposal around planning for a 100 per cent renewable energy network and Western Australia's participation in that, given that we are not part of the National Electricity Market, through dint of being an island network and having another island network in the north-west. Does the minister have an update on that? I am just seeking to confirm that it was the government's intention and remains its intention that the 100 per cent renewable energy planning should apply to all large significant electricity networks in Australia, in which I certainly include at least those two in WA if not much smaller off-network systems, as well.

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

Thank you for the question . I am advised that there has been no consultation to date with Western Australian officials or ministers in relation to the 100 per cent renewable scenarios. The Standing Council on Energy and Resources, comprising the ministers from all states and territories, will be discussing the scenarios to be considered with AEMO. The process will include discussions with state and territory officials. And I am advised that the government remains happy to work with the Western Australian government on this issue.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question I would ask the minister to take on notice. Could she provide to the chamber at the first opportunity, once she knows, which Western Australian agencies, departments or officials will be taking the lead on that planning process with WA?

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

I am happy to do that. I do not think I will be able to do that in the context of this debate, so I might have to take that as a question on notice.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked a question on algae technology for coal-fired power stations in estimates three years ago and the bureaucrats said then that if it commercialises it will completely alter the global debate on climate change. It is in the process of commercialising. We are going to turn 87 per cent of the emissions from coal-fired power stations into an asset instead of it being a garbage disposal issue as it is now. If this occurs why would coal-fired power stations with this technology be included in the carbon tax?

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am interested in the issue of algae because, like Senator Heffernan, people have drawn to my attention the potential to capture carbon dioxide from coal-fired power and convert it into algae and then on into fuel and so on. So I went up to the University of Newcastle to have a look at the specific research in question. Whilst it is achievable in a test tube and it is quite achievable in the volumes that you can generate in a lab, the issue is volume. When you put to them the question of what area you would need in order to convert large volumes, it becomes a completely unviable proposition at that scale. I put to the researchers there that, whilst it is achievable in the lab, when you look at the volume of carbon dioxide emissions and the area you would need in order to create the ponds for the algae you just get into some massive logistical problems. They acknowledged that they do not have a solution to the issue of scale. That is the point. If there is a breakthrough to the contrary in the future, it will be one of a suite of options in the whole field of being able to deal with it. But at the moment the issue of scale is, I understand, not one that can be overcome.

I also want to take this opportunity to ask if Senator Heffernan intends to move an amendment to the legislation that would remove the support currently given to the Australian car industry, so that you get competitive neutrality with rail. Or, does he intend to move to apply the carbon price to petrol in order to remove that inequity, because clearly the carbon price is coming in and, if you want to remove the inequity, that is what you would do. I just wondered if the coalition intends to move an amendment to take away the subsidies to the car industry or to impose a carbon price on petrol.

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

As I understood it your question was: if particular processes creating algae from CO2 emissions were commercialised, where would the liability fall? I think that is what you were asking. I am advised that as yet that process has not been commercialised. Were that process to be commercialised there would have to be a technical consideration of where the liability would fall. As I understand it, CO2 is admitted and you then have the algae, and the algae is then used as a fuel source.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just clarify a couple of things for you. I do know what I am talking about. Three MOUs for this technology have been signed with three major coal-fired power stations in Australia. There is later technology, Senator Milne. It is true that for a major coal-fired power station the process would require 2,500 acres at the present time. However, that has been overridden by highrise technology, which requires no sun to grow the algae. It is highrise, so it takes up very little area. Depending on the algae variety grown you can either go into a plastic outcome or into biofuel on the back of a feedstock for intensive livestock feed. Those are the two technologies. To make it clear, what I am asking, Minister, is: if that commercialises—and I emphasise that there are three major power stations in Australia that have signed up to this—why would they be included if they are turning what is now waste into an asset that then turns into a biofuel and a feedstock for livestock, which are excluded from the tax? Why wouldn't they be excluded from the carbon tax? They will have got rid of their emissions without the tax.

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

We are in pretty hypothetical territory here.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we're not.

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

Senator, we are, because this is not a technology that is commercialised and therefore it is not at this point within the remit of the legislation. You are asking me: 'If this happened, what would then happen?' But as a matter of courtesy to the chamber, I am happy to give you the best advice that I can. The issue would be this: at some point there has to be liability for the additional CO2, because the algae—as I understand it from the advice that I have just been given; this is not an area in which I have a great deal of personal expertise—is not permanently sequestering CO2. So there is a question then of who bears the liability. Is it the initial emitter of the CO2? Is it the person who grows the algae? Or, if the algae becomes a source for something else, is it the person who uses it for that? Those would be issues that would have to be resolved. But I emphasise that the advice that I have—and I can only take advice on this—is that this has not yet been commercialised and therefore this issue has not yet been resolved.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions relating to the coal industry, which is a very important part of the state that I come from—Queensland—and of Northern Australia. This is not a reflection on your chairmanship, Temporary Chairman Cameron. But I want to point out to you that in the last hour we have had some questions from our side to the minister and then we have had Labor Party and Greens senators—two Greens senators in a row—getting the call when between them the Labor Party and the Greens have curtailed this debate down to a very short period of time. I have a lot of questions. These people were on the committee that put this legislation together. Why are the Greens now wasting our time questioning the government about a package that they put together? If the chair is going to be at all fair about this, it must be understood that the Greens have a very small representation in this chamber. To call one of us, then one of the Greens, then one of us and then another of the Greens gives them an enormous advantage. And they are the people who agreed with the Labor Party on this package. They put it together. If they had any questions about this package, they should have asked them at the time they put this together.

We have a very restricted amount of time. A number of my colleagues here at the moment want to ask questions. I am confining myself tonight to 15 minutes, because I want others to have an opportunity. But we are going to keep getting interrupted by the Greens, who joined with the Labor Party to guillotine the time for these 18 bills down to the shortest committee stage for any debate held in this chamber for a long period of time—if you take the debate as being about 18 bills. I know that I have wasted a little time in saying this, but that point had to be made. We are in a guillotined debate. There are 18 bills that have to be gone through in detail. And yet the Greens keep getting up and giving little speeches, wasting our time. I plead with you, Mr Temporary Chairman, and all others who might take the chair, to be fair and equitable in relation to the questions that are asked.

Having said that, I will move on to the questions that I want to ask about the coal industry, which is very important in North Queensland. It supports the communities of Gladstone, Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville, Mt Isa and Moranbah—an enormous number of coal towns. And it is not just the coal towns. A lot of workers have purchased brand new houses down on the coast and have big mortgages. Their jobs are at risk.

In the very short period that I have allotted myself tonight, because others want to have questions as well, I want to focus on fugitive emissions. Those listening on the radio will know that fugitive emissions relate to the mining not the burning of coal. Fugitive emissions vary enormously from mine to mine and represent about five per cent to six per cent of Australia's total greenhouse emissions. Just to put that in perspective, methane emissions from livestock account for 11 per cent. The government proposes to tax fugitive emissions from coal mining. Minister, is it correct that no other coal exporting country imposes a tax on fugitive emissions from coal mining? Is it a fact, Minister, that the European Union emissions trading scheme specifically exempts those emissions, even though European Union emissions are larger in volume than those in Australia? Minister, is it also true that none of Australia's competitors in the coal export markets—countries such as Indonesia, Columbia, Russia, South Africa, Canada and the United States, which all have large coal mining industries—are contemplating a tax on fugitive emissions?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald raised the question of the fairness of the chairing of this session. I have sought some advice on that and I have been advised that my chairing has been consistent with the conventions of the Senate.

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

I think that anybody listening to this debate would not suggest that the opposition has not had a fair share of the debate tonight. Government senators have been very limited in their contributions. In relation to other senators, including Senator Milne, whatever Senator Macdonald's prejudices about the Greens, senators are entitled to participate in this debate. On fugitive emissions, Senator, I am just seeing what the case is in relation to other nations. What I do recall—and I will come back to you if I am wrong—is that you are correct that the European Union does not include fugitive emissions; however, they are regulated, which, as you know, is of course in itself the imposition of some sort of implicit price. I would also make the point that pollution from coal accounts for around one per cent of total emissions or less in the European Union and New Zealand, whereas I think it was around five per cent of Australia's carbon pollution in 2009. However, the government does recognise very clearly—and there was a lot of discussion about this—that there are a small number of gassy underground mines that have high-fugitive methane emissions. They will face an increased cost under a carbon price, and the government has allocated $1.3 billion to its coal package to provide assistance and to directly address the impact of the carbon price on these mines.

I emphasise that the vast majority of the coalmining industry is not emissions intensive and will not face materially increased costs under a carbon price. This is demonstrated in part, amongst other reasons, by Treasury modelling that projects that under a carbon price the coal industry will grow by 45 per cent. I would also refer the senator to the increased investment in the resources sector, which includes coal, over the last three years, and the $430-odd billion worth of investment in the pipeline. It is hardly an indication that there is a reduction in investment.

The Coal Sector Jobs Package is intended to directly address the impact of the carbon price on these mines. After taking into account assistance for gassy mines, the average impact of the $23 carbon price on all coalmines for their fugitive emissions is around $1.20 per tonne of coal.

I am also advised that recently Gujarat Mining released a statement claiming that their liability under the carbon price would be around $16 per tonne was a massively overstated amount and that the liability would be closer to $2.70 a tonne due to adopting strategies to reduce their carbon pollution. The company stated that this would not have a material effect on its future growth. There is plenty more information on that but I think I have responded to the senator's question.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Could you perhaps take on notice and confirm that no other coal-exporting country imposes a tax on fugitive emissions?

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

With respect, Senator, I do not think you qualified it by saying 'coal-exporting'.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I did not, let me qualify it now. I was sure that was my question but, if it was not, let's not argue about it. Can you confirm that no other coal-exporting country imposes a tax on fugitive emissions from coal mining? If you do not have that, Minister, could I ask you to take it on notice? Could you also confirm—I did ask you before—that none of our big coal-exporting competitor countries, such as Indonesia, Colombia, Russia, South Africa, Canada and the US, are contemplating a tax on fugitive emissions? If you do not have that information, I am happy for you to take it on notice, because I do have another question in the few minutes left to me.

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

I will certainly see if there is anything further I can provide. I think we have had a discussion before about a coal tax in India, which I think is roughly one dollar per tonne, which is then used to fund renewable and clean energy investment. I think it is very important—and I am sure the senator would not be intending to do this—that we do not make a suggestion that somehow every single mine in Australia is a gassy coal mine. The reality is that most coal mining in Australia is not emissions intensive. There are a small number of gassy underground mines with high fugitive emissions. That is why the government has provided the $1.3 billion. But it would be wrong to suggest that the entirety of the coal industry in this country is made up of gassy underground mines with high liabilities as a result of fugitive emissions. I think that is demonstrated by the market. You could hardly suggest that investment in coal and in the resources sector has tailed off since the government has been pressing forward with its carbon package. That is simply not borne out by the facts. The market is quite clear about its investment pipeline.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for mentioning India: $1 a tonne in India; $23 a tonne in Australia. You highlighted that; thank you for that advice. But could you, on notice, answer those other questions for me? And I ask a further question. I think the government has pointed out that fugitive emissions from coal mining and LNG production are the fastest-growing emissions in the Australian greenhouse inventory and must therefore be abated if Australia is to meet its five per cent emissions reduction target. However, is it right that there is no available or prospective technology to abate them? So, would you agree, Minister, that there is only one way to cut fugitive emissions from Australian coal mining by 2020—and that is by closing mines? Is that correct?

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

No, I would not agree. I think that question is a more polite way of putting the same sort of scare campaign we have seen from Mr Abbott. The government is providing, in addition to the $1.3 billion, the Coal Abatement Technology Support Package of $70 million, to support the development and implementation of abatement technologies. This would enable gassy coal mines to reduce emissions and therefore reduce their exposure to the carbon price. I am advised that, after taking into account assistance for gassy mines, the average impact of a $23 carbon price on all coal mines for their emissions is less than $1.90 per tonne of coal. As you would know, there have been significant increases of far greater proportions in coking coal prices and thermal coal prices over the last few years. So I would not agree with the senator's proposition about closing mines. He has put politely the same thing that the opposition has been putting for some time, which is simply not borne out on the facts and not borne out in terms of the investment decisions in the market.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the last question from me. Minister, would you agree that Australia is the largest exporter in the global seaborne coal trade but that Australia accounts for only six per cent of global production? Is that correct? Would you agree that most of the world's coal is used in the country in which it is mined, with seaborne trade forming only 15 per cent of the global use? Is that correct? Is it a fact—and if it is not, perhaps you can tell me what the figures are—that China produces 50 per cent of the world's black coal; the United States, 15 per cent; India, nine per cent; and Indonesia, South Africa, and Russia, four per cent each? Is it also true that Australia's share of global production is falling? World coal production has increased, I am told—and I seek your confirmation—by 66 per cent since the year 2000, whilst Australia's coal production is only up by 40 per cent, so we are going backwards. China's coal production has increased, I am told—and I seek your confirmation—by 141 per cent, and Colombia and Indonesia have increased their coal production by 91 per cent and 319 per cent, respectively.

Minister, do you agree that, with this global abundance of coal, the competitiveness of individual companies and countries is largely determined by their cost of production? Would you agree that by imposing additional costs on the Australian coal industry in the form of a carbon tax we diminish in some way our competitive advantage? And would you agree that the nature of global coal trade means that any loss of market will be readily filled by one or more of our trade competitors—none of whom have a carbon tax—thereby eliminating any potential environmental benefit from taxing Australian coal or shutting down Australian coalmines? Perhaps I can ask that last question in a different way: what is the benefit to global emissions when any reduction in Australian production will mean increases in production in these other countries that do not have any restrictions? Can you explain the environmental benefit?

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

There were a great many questions there. I am not in a position to confirm what the number is for Russian coal production. I am sorry; I do not have that.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will you take that on notice?

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

No, I am not going to take it on notice, Senator. It is not relevant to the legislation before the parliament. If you want to put it on notice, you can. You are asking a whole range of things which you know are not relevant to make a political point. The political point comes down to a couple of very clear propositions, and I am happy to respond to those. The first is that we should not bother, because it is going to get burnt elsewhere. I think that is the proposition.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell me what the environmental benefit is.

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

There is an environmental benefit to a scheme which reduces Australia's emissions. There is an economic benefit in ensuring that you have the widest appropriate scope to that scheme, because that reduces the economic cost. The proposition from which we commence is that there is a benefit to reducing Australia's emissions. That is a proposition you share, Senator, because if that really were your position then why would you do direct action? If that really were your position you would not do direct action. You would not pick winners with taxpayers' money to reduce Australia's emissions. If that is your position you should go in to your party room and say to Mr Abbott, 'We should not have a direct action policy to reduce Australia's emissions by five per cent.'

You also talked about costs of production as being the primary factor of competitiveness in a global industry. There is some truth to that, Senator. But I would say this to you: I bet you would not come into this chamber and say that we should pay Chinese wages to coal workers. I bet you would not say that. You would not come into this chamber and say that we should pay Indian wages to coal workers in your state. So let us not pretend that this country has always decided, in relation to a globally traded commodity, that we should equalise the costs of production across the globe. We would never accept that. I do not think anybody in this chamber would accept that—not even Work Choices went that far.

Because the Senator is proceeding again on the proposition that somehow this will cause dreadful damage to the coal industry, I would remind him of two points. The Treasury modelling of a carbon price indicates that coal output will continue to grow strongly over the coming decades with or without a carbon price, doubling in size by 2050. Coal industry employment has more than doubled in the last six years. I am advised that there is an investment pipeline of $70 billion in the coal sector; I have actually seen higher figures than that. There are some 87 new mines either under construction or awaiting approval. The vast majority of the coalmining industry is not emissions intensive, and we have provided a very substantial amount of assistance, both for abatement technology and more generally to the industry, to reflect that proportion of the industry which is very emissions intensive.

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

I want to follow on from Senator Macdonald's line of questioning. I think the figures are of great interest.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chair, on a point of order: notwithstanding what you were told before, this is clearly an attempt by the Greens, in the limited time the Greens have allowed us to ask questions—by having Senator Brown, Senator Milne and Senator Ludlam—to prevent—

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

He has not spoken yet in three hours.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But we are having three Greens speakers who are taking up more time than coalition speakers and it is simply not fair, Mr Temporary Chairman. If you say that technically you are going from one side to the other, the community will understand that this is a Greens-Labor package put together by the two of them in this so-called bi-party thing—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, you are now debating the point of order. There is no point of order.

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

Senator Macdonald has spat the dummy and left.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would not bother to stay and hear whatever rubbish you are going to talk about.

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

And he is being disorderly as he goes. But that is how the conservatives are, particularly Senator Macdonald, who has had to apologise at least once today. I want to ask the minister about the export of coal and the emissions, because it is an important point that Senator Macdonald raised before he fled the chamber. According to news reports earlier this year, one new coalmining project west of Townsville in Queensland, with a large stake held by Mr Clive Palmer and Ms Gina Rineberg—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rinehart.

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

Ms Gina Rinehart. She and I recently exchanged books. If you do the assessment on that single mining endeavour and the exports overseas, you see that the burning of that coal overseas is equivalent to the whole of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions plus 12 per cent. I think that Senator Macdonald is quite right that there is something remiss in legislation that does not pick up on those emissions being made overseas from a product that is dug out of the ground here in Australia—on this occasion, unusually enough, by an Australian company; most of the industry being overseas owned. I wonder if in the course of the deliberations that have led to this legislation the government did look at the inherent suggestion from Senator Macdonald that in coal exports—and maybe this should apply to gas as well—an assessment ought not to have been made of the greenhouse gas emissions going to countries where there is not a trading scheme or a price placed. Perhaps they followed through the logic from Senator Macdonald that in fact, for fairness, they ought to be assessed and an impost put on, at the point of exit, equivalent to the price of the greenhouse gas—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Macdonald is not in the chamber and we all know he is very capable of looking after himself, but I do think Senator Brown is running extremely close to misleading the Senate by way of verballing Senator Macdonald and misinterpreting what Senator Macdonald has said.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That is a debating point, Senator Birmingham, not a point of order.

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

I will keep it simple for Senator Birmingham to follow. I will consult with Senator Milne about this a little later over dinner, but I want to ask the minister at the table whether she could give the committee an assessment of what the greenhouse gas emissions coming from the export of coal and gas out of Australia will be once they are combusted. I might add that a recent shipment of woodchips which went from Tasmania to Japans was, according to Forestry Tasmania, burnt in a coal-fired power station. The point that was being developed by Senator Macdonald is a valid one. We are in a global trading situation, but we know that we share the atmosphere and that what is burnt elsewhere comes back to impact upon us, because it is part of the greenhouse gas emissions effectively coming out of this country. They will therefore effectively impact the climate change trajectory coming down the line—they will impact the Great Barrier Reef, the Murray-Darling Basin, the snowfields and the economy of this country.

Indeed, I would ask if the minister would look at the impact on the Darling Downs of the Wandoan coalmine, which the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Tony Burke, ticked off on just a few months ago. I am told it might be up to 11 kilometres across. It is an open-cut coalmine in the farmlands of the Darling Downs—one of the largest open-cut coalmines on the face of the planet, if not the largest. Is that coal going to be combusted through export to China, Japan and perhaps South Korea and other countries overseas?

I also ask the minister, following on the line of questioning developed by Senator Macdonald, who has come back into the chamber, if there is an assessment by the government of the impact of the proposed 40,000 drill holes for coal seam gas in the Darling Downs. You will know, Minister, that there is a very large facility being built at Gladstone to process this gas to have it sent overseas, where it will be creating greenhouse gases, which will be feeding into the atmosphere. Senator Macdonald is quite right: this will very likely be in countries where there will not be a provision for domestic combustion of fossil fuels—as there sensibly is under this legislation—that would take into account, at least in the modest way in which this legislation does, the impact on the atmosphere, on the entities I have spoken about and therefore on the economy. What we have here is an export industry which is not exporting the problem at all; it is going to come back to us. Australia is left with the legacy of that problem, but the exporters—which, I repeat, are largely overseas entities—are going to escape the carbon price that is so fundamental to this excellent package of legislation that the Gillard government, working with the Greens and the Independents, has brought before this chamber. Senator Macdonald has raised a very important point. I am grateful to him for having put it. I am following it through to ensure that we get some enlightenment in the chamber on a matter which is quite fundamental to the issue at hand.

Progress reported.