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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to statements made by the secretary of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that purchases of international permits by domestically liable parties do not go in to the budget in any way because they are not through government but that companies will nonetheless pass on the costs associated with purchasing such permits. With modelling showing that permits to the value, in 2010 dollars, of $2.7 billion in 2020 and $57 billion in 2050 will be purchased by Australian companies, does the minister agree with Mr Comley that the cost of these billions in international permits will be passed on to all Australians?

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

I have to say that when it comes to trade and international permits what we see from the Liberal Party on this issue is the same as we saw from the Liberal Party in relation to the IMF: a new protectionist and xenophobic Liberal Party, ladies and gentlemen. Here they are, the party that used to be the party of free trade, the party that used to believe in lowest economic cost, the party that used to believe in institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. What are they like now? Perhaps the National Party. The Liberals have actually morphed into the National Party when it comes to national economic policy. Senator Birmingham comes in here and tries to ask a question based around budget impact, but really what he is saying is: 'We don't like international trading. We are going to have our leader go out and talk about shonks in Nigeria and drum up the xenophobia.' Speaking of which—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. This incompetent minister has yet again followed her usual practice of spending more than half of her allotted answering time in attacking the questioner and attacking the Liberal Party. Can you bring her to order and ask her to answer the question—

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

There is no point of order. The minister has 53 seconds remaining.

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

The reason we want international trading is that we believe that Australian companies should be able to reduce emissions at lowest cost. Isn't that a radical proposition? We actually want to ensure that business can reduce emissions at the lowest cost—something that the Liberal Party now opposes. What the Liberal Party wants is higher costs for the economy, higher costs for Australian business and, incidentally, higher costs for Australian workers.

As part of the question I was also asked about compensation. As the senator would know, we have already outlined a very substantial tax reform package as part of the clean energy package: a tripling of that tax-free threshold, increases in pensions and increases in the disability support pension—all of which would be ripped away by those opposite.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I again ask the minister if she agrees with Mr Comley that business will pass on the costs of these international permits. I also refer the minister to statements by the Prime Minister that compensation will keep up with the rising cost of the carbon tax. How will the government fund this increased compensation to cover the billions spent by Australian companies on international permits when, as Mr Comley says, the revenue from these permits does not go into the budget in any way?

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

First, in relation to the adequacy of the compensation, the Prime Minister has made clear that the compensation will be permanent and that we will continue to review it as outlined in the clean energy package in order to ensure that it is permanent and adequate. I also remind the senator that we have laid out the budget impact of the clean energy package in the figures presented to the parliament, which are part of the legislative package that he was debating this morning. The government has made clear its approach in relation to the budget impact and in relation to the assistance package to taxpayers.

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

I hope you become the campaign manager, Penny. I just love that tone of voice.

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

People love your talking so much, George. You bray in this chamber and they all laugh at you.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer the minister to those fiscal tables published by the government that she just mentioned, which indicate that, even in the period when no international permits are being purchased, the carbon tax package runs at a multibillion dollar deficit. Will the minister tell the Senate which Australians will miss out on compensation to deal with the ever-increasing costs passed through with the carbon tax, or will a much bigger deficit be incurred beyond the forward estimates? Which is it: compensation that does not keep up or a bigger deficit, Minister?

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

Australians would miss out on assistance in relation to climate change if the coalition were to be elected. What they would miss out on is tax cuts, what they would miss out on are increases to pensions and other allowances—these are all the things that those opposite oppose. They will have to go to the next election telling Australian pensioners that they will get less. They will have to go to the next election saying to Australians that everyone earning under $80,000 a year will pay more under an Abbott government. That is the coalition's policy. That is before they rip away health services like Mr Abbott did when he was the minister for health, ripping a billion dollars out of public hospitals—

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

Mr President, on a point of order, the minister has had 48 seconds to respond to this supplementary, which asked the government very directly about their policy. She has spent all 48 seconds talking about the coalition's policies. I would invite you to direct the minister to actually refer to the government's policies and the question she was asked about the impact on the budget deficit, and the Prime Minister's promise for ongoing increases in compensation in the remaining 12 seconds that she has.

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

There is no point of order. The minister.

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

The fiscal tables associated with the package show the impact on the budget. We obviously always update the budget figures in the usual way, but those opposite have no credibility on this. (Time expired)