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

My question is to Senator Wong, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister guarantee that full revenue forecasts associated with the sale and auction of permits under Labor's carbon tax will be published in the forward estimates of this year's budget papers for the 2015-16 budget year when the carbon tax moves from a fixed price to a floating price?

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

I congratulate Senator Birmingham for finally getting a question on carbon. I think he is three or four down the track from Senator Cormann. He would also know—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Order, on my right and on my left!

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

This government has ensured that its assumptions about the carbon price and its policies in relation to the Clean Energy Future package are reflected fully in the budget. That is more than can be said for anything the opposition has put forward. The entire carbon price package is included in the midyear review, the MYEFO bottom line, and that also shows the budget returning to surplus in 2012-13. We have been very upfront with Australians as to the cost of the Clean Energy Future package, far more upfront than those opposite, who continue to obfuscate and mislead people about the true cost of the policy that they are now advocating, contrary to the one they previously had.

The senator would know—I think he was at estimates for this aspect—that we have said consistently that in this year's budget we will update the figures in the usual way across government for the 2015-16 year, and that will obviously include the carbon price in that year. I am certainly not going to get into any speculation about how those updates might occur. I am sure the senator will have the opportunity to consider the government's figures post the announcement or the bringing down of the budget, which I would say again will be a surplus budget, unlike the $70 billion black hole that his leader is leading him to. That is the reality. We have offset new spending and those opposite do not— (Time expired)

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

I thank the minister for the answer. Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the European ETS is forecast to continue trading below A$15, isn't it highly likely there will be a multibillion-dollar drop in carbon tax revenue in 2015-16 when the shift to a floating price happens? And, given that the majority of spending under the carbon tax is fixed, as the minister admitted in her Sky News interview on Sunday, won't this lead to a multibillion-dollar budget black hole? Isn't there just as much chance of the carbon tax having—to use the minister's own words from Sunday—a very negative effect on the budget when this shift occurs?

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

There was certainly a lot of speculation in that little question. I know Senator Birmingham is desperately trying to demonstrate that he can mix it with the best and throw all these questions at the government, but, really, that was a question almost entirely—I will give him one credit—based on speculation. It is true that I was asked about an earlier move to a floating price and my answer reflected the proposition I put in response to his primary question, which is that we have already paid for and costed the carbon package, the Clean Energy Future package, in the budget and the bottom line still shows a return to surplus in 2012-13— something those opposite, out of the mouth of the shadow finance minister, have already walked away from. I have previously said we will update the figures in the usual way in the budget. (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 further supplementary question. How does the minister explain downplaying the budget impact of a shift to the floating price in 2015-16 when questioned by the opposition compared with her willingness to argue in response to changes suggested by Mr Rudd than an earlier floating price would be likely to have 'a very negative effect on the budget'? Why has the minister only been open about this risk when it allowed her to rebuff Mr Rudd's leadership plans?

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

I will answer that aspect of the question which is in my portfolio responsibility and not some of the rhetorical accusations which characterise that question. In relation to the current period of the fixed price, as I have said—and this will be the third occasion during this set of questions—we have reflected the cost of the policies, including the household assistance package, in the budget bottom line, which shows the budget returning to surplus in 2012-13. I would remind those opposite that their policy is to claw back the age pension increase and the increase to the disability support pension, to not give the tax cuts through the tripling of the tax-free threshold and to claw back the family tax benefit increases. That is coalition policy. In relation to what occurs in the 2015-16 year, we will account for that properly in the usual way, which is something you can never give a commitment to, because you refuse to cost your policy; you know it will cost more. (Time expired)