Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. How much less revenue will the government collect from its carbon tax over the current forward estimates as a result of its decision to remove the floor price on carbon?

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

Obviously that question is not something that I am going to be responding to, because those issues are amongst those that need to always be considered in the context of the budget. As the senator knows, whether it is on this issue or on a range of other budget estimates, I have told him previously in this place that the government considers these issues and considers the budget estimates in the budget update context. That remains the same for this issue as for any other budget estimate.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does that mean that the minister has just confirmed that the government expects to lose billions of dollars in revenue as a result of the decision to remove the floor price on carbon? Given that the minister is not prepared to stand by the estimates that were in the budget based on a $29-a-tonne assumption, does that mean that the minister acknowledges and recognises there will be a significant budget black hole? (Time expired)

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

That was really an exercise in theatrics. The senator would know, because he has asked me ad nauseam, that I do stand behind the Treasury modelling. I refer him to both my public statements—which occasionally he does read; he tweets about them—and the statements in the chamber in response to him. I have said on many occasions that we stand by the Treasury modelling, which is still the best estimate of what will occur in relation to economic impact, global carbon prices and so forth on a whole range of issues associated with the carbon package. I fail to see how the senator can draw the conclusion he has drawn in the supplementary question from my primary question answer.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. If the minister really stands by the budget estimate of a $29-a-tonne carbon price in 2015-16, why then did the government decide to remove the $15 floor price on carbon? Is it not the case that the government is well aware that this decision to drop its floor price on carbon is contributing to Labor's $120 billion budget black hole, which comes on top of its $174 billion in already accumulated deficits?

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

The question on the $15 floor price is a question that should be addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister just challenged that the question was appropriately directed to her as Minister representing the Treasurer. This was a question that went directly to the revenue assumptions in the budget. It is a question that is directly relevant to the portfolio that she represents in this chamber and she should be answering it.

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

There is no point of order. The minister had answered the question and had sat down. I cannot instruct a minister how to answer a question, as I have said before.