Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Will the minister confirm that Alcoa's review of its Point Henry aluminium smelter operation in Geelong considered the price of the government's carbon tax on the costs of production? Will the minister also confirm that Alcoa's carbon tax bill for its Point Henry smelter is in the order of $40 million?

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

In relation to the carbon price liability, I can confirm that aluminium would be included amongst the most emissions-intensive trade exposed industries and therefore would receive the maximum amount of free permit assistance under the scheme. The advice I have is that aluminium smelters would only face an average carbon price of $1.30 per tonne of emissions for their core smelting activity. That assistance has been provided to that sector, recognising the trade exposed nature of the industry and the fact that it is emissions intensive.

In relation to the review, obviously I would suggest the senator look to the statements from the company which have made clear that the high Australian dollar and the low world price of aluminium are the reasons for the review of Point Henry's operations. What is disappointing from the opposition, who wanted to link the Fairfax job losses to the carbon price, is that every time there is some concern about any firm in terms of its viability, given the international trading conditions it experiences, you see the opposition jumping on board not to protect jobs, not to support jobs, but to try and make a political point. They try and make a political point with the jobs of Australians. Unlike those on that side, we on this side are serious about jobs.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance, Mr President: I asked the minister quite clearly whether the carbon tax bill for Alcoa was going to be $40 million. I ask the minister to answer the question.

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

I believe the minister is being relevant to the question. The minister has 27 seconds remaining to address the question.

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

That point of order was made—if I may say, Mr President—without listening to the answer.

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

No, you may not say, Minister!

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

I commenced the answer with a discussion of the liability and the free permits. I commenced the answer with a discussion of the assistance that the government is providing. I commenced the answer with a discussion of the Point Henry review. You just do not want to listen, do you, Senator Brandis?

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

He wants to talk about Fairfax!

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

Order on my right! Senator Brandis is entitled to be heard in silence.

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

Mr President, in the time that has gone by since you ruled on Senator Ronaldson's point of order, the minister has done nothing other than comment on the point of order. That is plainly out of order for two reasons: firstly, the point of order was disposed of by you and, secondly, a critique of a point of order that has been ruled on has nothing to do with answering the question. In the eight seconds remaining, you should require the minister to address the narrow question Senator Ronaldson posed.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Wong was highlighting how she had quite clearly been relevant in answering the question. She went back and covered how at the start of the question she commenced with the carbon price liability of aluminium. I cannot see how she could be clearer.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! I had ruled on the point of order and there is no need to debate the outcome of a point of order once the ruling has been made. I draw the minister's attention to the question. There are now eight seconds remaining to answer the question.

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

We know that Senator Brandis is sensitive; he is clearly pompous as well. We have made clear that we support— (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the government's $40 million carbon tax bailout for Alcoa will pay for its $40 million carbon tax bill, can the minister confirm how many other Australian industries could be saved from destruction if the government scrapped its carbon tax?

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

First, I do not accept the proposition in the question. I would again remind the opposition that the Treasury modelling shows that we can continue to grow the number of jobs in this country with the carbon price. The assumption in the question that the carbon price will somehow mean the end of various industries is really a reiteration of the scare campaign that Mr Abbott has been engaged in—which ranged from the carbon price being the death of the coal industry and the death of the mining sector to the town of Whyalla being wiped off the face of the Earth. I anticipate that Whyalla will still be there after 1 July. I would point the opposition to not only the increased investment in coal and mining but also the shares that some of their colleagues have invested in since the carbon price became legislation—because it flies in the face of the scare campaign. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that Labor's toxic carbon tax is still six days away yet the government has already been forced to bail out Alcoa's Point Henry aluminium smelter, why won't the government do the right thing for Australian industry and manufacturers in the Geelong region and scrap the toxic carbon tax—which the people of Geelong know was based on a lie?

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

Unlike those opposite, we are a government focused on protecting jobs and supporting jobs; and, unlike those opposite, we are not going to try to play politics with industries that are grappling with a high dollar and lower world prices. What is occurring is: those on that side grasp onto any commercial challenge as a result of industry's dealing with a high dollar and world prices being at lower levels, and they try to make political mileage out of it. We are the government that have seen the creation of over 800,000 jobs since we came to government. We will continue to do what we have done, which is to focus on policies which support employment. We are not going to be distracted by the sort of craven politicking around people's jobs that we see have seen from the other side.