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 evidence given by Treasury officials at the shotgun inquiry into the carbon tax legislation that beyond 2020 they modelled:

… a scheme where countries make the same emission reductions as each other relative to their 'business as usual' path.

So, the analysis is that OPEC countries would reduce their emissions relative to their business as usual path by the same amount as Australia. Will the minister inform the Senate precisely what level of international action is assumed in the Treasury modelling for OPEC countries, and all other countries, of the carbon tax beyond 2020?

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

I welcome yet another question on a piece of legislation that has already passed the parliament. In relation to the question from Senator Birmingham, I refer him to the same table to which I referred Senator Abetz. I would again make the point that the assumptions in the medium global action scenario, which are transparently set out in the document, are that countries take action in accordance with their low-end pledges as made to both Copenhagen and Cancun. You would see that multistage action is assumed in the medium global action scenario, where developed countries and China lead mitigation efforts initially and all countries act by 2031. The assumption between 2013 and 2015 is for uncoordinated global action but no trade in permits and differentiated carbon prices. From 2016 onwards countries trade either bilaterally or through a central market.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I will take that interjection. The senator said, 'That is right.' Well, there is an assumption as to international trading. There is already international trading, so one should not assume the detail of any particular domestic policy has to underpin an assumption of there being international trading. Obviously we already have, for example, a voluntary market. We have CDM, the Clean Development Mechanism trading, which is already on foot.

In relation to OPEC there is table 3.2, but I suspect—and I am only quickly looking at this—that this may well be at 2020 and a 2050 target. The senator would see that there are assumptions in percentage— (Time expired)

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. Noting that the government's target for emissions reduction in Australia beyond 2020 is an 80 per cent reduction against business as usual and the statement by Treasury officials that they have assumed all countries, including the OPEC countries, will make similar reductions, I ask the minister: is it really the government's assumption that OPEC countries like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia will reduce emissions by 80 per cent against business as usual scenarios by 2050?

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

I do not have the modelling assumptions in their entirety in front of me—they go to some 200-plus pages.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Neither does anyone else.

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

The interjection over there is 'Neither does anyone else.' Actually, the government has released most of them and I am sure that Senator Birmingham, a diligent senator who was on the inquiry, would be aware of that.

The assumptions have been clearly discussed in both inquiries. I note in the original question there was a reference to 'shotgun'. I would make the point that we have had some 37 inquiries on these issues. But in terms of the regional emissions allocations, the numbers I have, at page 32, do not correlate with the numbers that Senator Birmingham has just put to me. But if I am incorrect I will certainly bring some further information back for him.

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 draw the minister's attention at least to page 8 of the committee Hansard from 26 September, where this Treasury evidence was given. I further ask the minister whether any of the OPEC countries have committed to matching the government's stated objective of reducing emissions by 80 per cent against business as usual scenarios by 2050, as stated by the Treasury officials? And, if the minister is unable to name one, doesn't this demonstrate that this carbon tax modelling is flawed and should be redone?

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

I am again asked a question that asserts an opinion based on factual assertions in the question that we do not accept. No doubt Senator Brandis will jump to his feet if I point that out, but I am not able to respond in any other way than to point out that the questioner, Senator Birmingham, is again putting facts that we do not accept and that do not accord with the answers I have given previously and nor do they accord with the documentation that is in the public arena.

It is the case that there is a multistage approach from 2021 that assumes various actions being taken by different nations, including OPEC. That is clearly laid out in the modelling.