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

Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Ludwig. Miss you, Senator Wong! After 100 days of the carbon tax and with eight major changes to the carbon tax or associated programs during those 100 days, I ask the minister if the government finally believes it has its carbon tax legislation right and if the minister and the government will rule out yet more changes to the carbon tax or the plethora of carbon tax programs it operates?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator opposite for the opportunity to talk on the carbon price and how, after 100 days, the sky has not fallen in. No; it has not fallen in. Whyalla has not been wiped off the map; it continues. What we do have is a transition for a carbon price into an emissions trading scheme, which I am sure those opposite, or some of them at least, truly believe in, but they have been stifled by those opposite.

We have an opportunity for them now to come clean and admit that they do support the carbon price, they do support the transition to a clean energy future. We have a system which is now going to ensure that we can move to a clean energy future; one where, after 100 days, we have been able to demonstrate to those opposite that the price on carbon will motivate people to change their behaviour, to drive the price down. We have, after 100 days, none of the effects that those opposite outlined, none of the impacts that they outlined; the scare campaign that those opposite have concentrated on has absolutely fallen flat.

We can rule out that if those opposite were to be in government they would not change it. They would adopt it and continue to have an emissions trading scheme in place. They would not rule it out. That is what I can guarantee. I would hate to see the day that you would have to be put to that— (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. Does the minister believe the changes to the carbon tax and carbon tax programs, especially the axing of the Contract for Closure program and the linking of the carbon tax to Europe, will result in Australia being more reliant on the purchase of foreign carbon credits under the carbon tax?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite seem to be pursuing a path of reregulation, a path of stifling commercial opportunity and stifling change. The EU ETS is the largest and most liquid carbon market in the world, and those opposite know that. The Australian government's longstanding policy is that international linking is in our national interest because it will help us to reduce emissions at the lowest cost. The government has secured agreement, as this chamber has been advised, with the European Commission that from 1 July 2015 Australia's emissions trading scheme will be linked with the EU ETS. That means from 1 July 2015, Australia's carbon price will reflect that of our second-largest trading bloc and be consistent with 30 other countries.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. There was only one question that was asked, and that was whether in fact the linking to Europe—and the minister may be talking about the linking to Europe, but we acknowledge that is happening; that is not under question—will result in the purchase of more international carbon credits. Yes or no, will it?

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

There is no point of order. The minister was addressing the question.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do reject the premise of the question that was put forward. What those opposite fail to appreciate is the EU linking— (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. I will try it a different way for the new minister acting in this portfolio. Will the minister confirm that under the government's own modelling, even with the carbon tax, Australia's emissions will increase from 578 million tonnes in 2010 to 621 million tonnes by 2020? Does the minister agree that the panicked changes made to the carbon tax in its first 100 days will result in domestic emissions growth even higher than that forecast?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I reject the premise that is underlying that question. If you look at the headline Treasury modelling results, the government stands by those modelling results. It was one of the most extensive and robust economic modelling exercises ever performed in Australia. Treasury modelling confirms that with a carbon price, growth in the Australian economy will be decoupled from growth in carbon pollution. It projects that under the carbon price, strong economic growth will continue, gross national income is projected to grow by 1.1 per cent to 2050, income will grow, real income per person is projected to increase by 9,000 per year from today's levels to 2020, and employment will grow with 1.6 million new jobs created by 2020. Pollution will fall by 2050; carbon pricing is expected to reduce Australia's domestic emissions by nearly half of what they would be without a carbon price.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The minister has again absorbed most of the time. The question was specific to domestic emissions. The minister has prattled on about everything else that might have been contained in the Treasury modelling, but has come nowhere close to talking about domestic emissions. I know that Senator Wong would understand the question were she still answering it, but perhaps you could ask Senator Ludwig, now that he has had time to consult with Senator Wong, to actually answer the question.

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

There is no point of order. Minister, you have five seconds remaining.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did say, and I am sure Senator Birmingham was not listening: pollution will fall by 2050. (Time expired)