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 the findings of the ANAO report into the administration of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme and in particular to the findings that 75 per cent of emissions reported to the government by companies that are likely to be liable to pay the carbon tax contained errors, with 17 per cent of reports containing significant errors. What confidence can the public have that companies are able to accurately measure and report emissions on which, in less than five months time, they will begin to have to pay billions of dollars of tax? Is this not just further evidence that the government's entire carbon tax is built on false premises and very shaky foundations?

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

I thank Senator Birmingham for his question. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme, in relation to which the question was asked, is of course a scheme put in place by the Howard government in 2007, under the then minister, Mr Turnbull. Obviously, the government takes the integrity of carbon emissions data very seriously. I am advised that the depart­ment has been working with businesses to improve the reporting system which was put in place under the Howard government. I am also advised that the department has accepted all the recommendations in the report and is putting in place measures to address the issues identified before the carbon price comes into effect.

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

You mean all those massive errors!

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

Lord Brandis, if you want to talk about the errors you might want to wander down to the other place and have a chat to Mr Turnbull, because it was he who put the reporting system in place. I am not sure whether you two are actually speaking, because I recall that you used to support him and then you did not—but that is another point. From April of this year, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme will be administered by the new, independent—

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Wait a minute, Senator Wong. I need to hear the answer, and it does not help to have interjections across the table from both sides.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Wong, ignore that interjection. Address your comments to the chair. It does not help question time.

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

From April of this year, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme will be administered by the new, independent Clean Energy Regula­tor, and the largest emitters will be required to audit their reports before they submit them each year. This will be a substantial improvement to the current reporting scheme. As I said, the department has already been clear that it has accepted all of the recommendations of the audit office report.

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 refer again to the ANAO report, which found that depart­mental systems being run under your government contained 'significant security vulnerabilities' which could allow outside corruption of emissions data. I note the minister's statement that the government has accepted all of the recommendations of the Audit Office, but will they all have been implemented before companies are expected to start paying billions of dollars in carbon tax?

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

I am again asked about Howard government legislation and I again say that the department is already working with business to improve the reporting system put in place by the Howard government. I would remind those opposite that this legislation dates from the time when the opposition used to believe that a price on carbon was sensible. In fact, in introducing the very legislation about which we are talking the then minister said:

This bill is the first major step in establishing the Australian emissions trading scheme.

That was Mr Turnbull, on behalf of the Howard government, when introducing the scheme to which the honourable senator is referring. So, really, this is a piece of legisla­tion introduced by those opposite when they used to believe in a price on carbon.

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. Given the administrative failures of this government, within this portfolio, in programs like the home insulation scheme and the associated inspection program, the Green Loans scheme, the Solar Flagships program, with carbon tax advertising and now with the reporting of emissions data, what confidence can Australians have that hundreds of millions of dollars more will not be wasted during a botched implementation of this, the world's biggest carbon tax?

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

We yet again have a range of false assertions in a question, including the last point in relation to the carbon price. It is quite extraordinary, isn't it, that we see people who used to come into this place arguing for a carbon price, who used to be sensible when it came to economic policy, now going down the populist route that Mr Abbott is taking. This is on a day when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has described the surplus as an extravagant promise. Senator Abetz today, as part of the opposition walking away from the surplus, described the surplus as an extravagant promise. How embarrassing. That just shows the extent to which the sensible economic thinkers on that side—there is at least one and he is sitting on the back bench—have lost all ability to influence coalition policy.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. How long are you going to allow this incompetent minister to keep pretending to answer questions when she does not go anywhere near the subject of the questions she is asked? This is typical of this minister. She always spends the first half of any answer attacking the questioner, because she is simply incapable of answering any question. Mr President, I seek your help in making this chamber work and in making question time work by making sure government ministers actually address questions.

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

There is no point of order.