Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and seven related bills. The question is that amendment No. 3 on sheet 7527, moved by Senator Singh, be agreed to.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday, we got the point in committee where Senator Singh had moved the amendment, which would move our existing emissions trading scheme from a fixed price period to a flexible price period. That will effectively move the scheme from a $25 price down to around $7 to $9, depending on the price in the European Union. That is the effect of that amendment. I note with interest that the Palmer United Party have said that they support an emissions trading scheme. I would be interested to know in the parliament whether the government has any interest in moving to a flexible priced emissions trading scheme or not or whether the government rules out ever accepting an emissions trading scheme of any kind.

The second thing I wanted to ask the government in relation to this while the minister is here is what is the estimate of the revenue that the government expects to forego by abolishing the carbon price. Would he give me an estimate over the forward estimates of exactly what revenue he expects to forego in the forward estimates period, because this is a critical element of the issue of going to flexible pricing or not. Flexible pricing would reduce the amount of money coming into the budget, but it would at least maintain some money, whereas what the government is doing is forgoing the lot. I would like to ask that of the minister.

I would also like to ask him, in relation to the forgone revenue, how much of that revenue will the government lose as a result of restoring the fuel tax credit to cover every cent of excise that mining companies spend on fuel? Specifically, for the forward estimates and what you intend to forego, how much of that is directed to fuel tax credits to the big miners? In relation to financial benefits accruing to the big miners, now that they will not have to pay for fugitive emissions and neither will coal seam gas operations, what is your expectation of the financial benefit that will accrue to mining companies and CSG companies through no longer having to pay for fugitive emissions?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a bit like groundhog day, because I feel like I have answered all of these questions before. Whatever cuddly name the Labor Party or the Greens want to give to a tax, whether it is a fixed price or a flexible price, a tax is a tax is a tax. The coalition went to the last election promising that we would scrap the carbon tax. We are determined to deliver on that commitment, because that is the right thing to do by families, pensioners and the economy as a whole.

In relation to the net cost to the budget of ending the carbon tax with effect from 1 July 2014, it is $7.6 billion over the forward estimates period on an underlying cash balance. That is a benefit that flows straight to families, pensioners and businesses. It will help grow a more prosperous economy moving forward, it will help attract investment and it will help create jobs, because it will help make Australian businesses more competitive internationally.

In relation to all of the other questions, we traversed them in some detail last week and I will refer Senators Singh and Milne to the Hansard record of the debate last week.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann obviously has a different recollection of last week, because I have had never had an answer from him about the fuel tax credits that he is going to give back to the big miners, which are 6c a litre. I want to know how much revenue will the government lose as a result of restoring the fuel tax credit to cover every cent of excise that the mining companies spend on fuel. I want that over the forward estimates, please. I did not get that figure from you last week. I am asking for it now.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Senator Milne.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the minister is not going to answer questions—is that what is going to happen in this committee stage of the debate, Chair, because it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask a minister to explain forgone revenue? We now have a minister sitting there refusing to answer the question on the same day we have a Treasurer standing up saying that we have got a budget repair job to be done and out there refusing to answer questions as to how much money is going back into the pockets of the big miners.

I am going to ask again and keep asking until you give us an answer. I want to know not only about the fuel tax credits going back to the big miners—every cent of excise, 6c a litre, over the forward estimates to every big miner turns into billions. We have a figure from the Parliamentary Budget Office. I want to know what the government's figure is. How much cost-shifting are you doing out of the taxpayer into the big miners? That is one thing I think the community deserves an answer to. I also asked about the financial benefit that will accrue to mining companies and coal-seam gas companies through no longer having to pay for fugitive emissions that are driving climate change. Please, I would like an answer.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have said before, I again refer Senator Milne to the Hansard record where we traversed all these issues in some detail last week.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did not!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I also pointed to last week's that Senator Milne and the Greens have got absolutely no credibility on this issue whatsoever, because Senator Milne and the Greens are the party that stand for real cuts in the value of the tax on fuel. The Greens stand for regular real cuts in the value of the tax on fuel. The value of the excise on fuel was about 41.5 per cent in 2001. It is now 25 per cent. The government has said that we want to restore indexation to ensure that the value of the fuel excise keeps pace with inflation. The Greens, extraordinarily and completely inconsistently with their stated policy positions otherwise, have said that they would oppose that particular measure, which is an important measure as part of the budget repair bill. So the sanctimony and the hypocrisy with which these questions are put to us just really put the merit of that question in proper context.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can tell the Senate that Senator Cormann is not being up-front with the Australian people. Perhaps he would like to go out and tell the Australian people what the figure is for the increase in indexation on fuel excise plus the 6c a litre on the fuel tax credits over the forward estimates. I tell him that, according to our estimations, it is half of what you would raise in the fuel excise. Half would go straight into the pockets of the big miners. It is a complete cost-shift out of the pockets of the community when they drive their vehicles straight into the pockets of the big miners. That is where it is going. Add up the figures. Indexation plus fuel tax credits—half is going into that and the other half into the East West Link, WestConnex and every other freeway and congestion measure that will increase urban sprawl and increase pollution. Why don't you tell people that you want to take their money on fuel excise in order to give it to the big miners through the indexation and through this particular measure? You will not come forward and you will not say.

We did not discuss this last week. You did not put a figure on the table. I am asking you again for the figure that you are prepared to forego here. How much are you going to lose as a result of giving back to the big miners 6c a litre? It is 6c a litre into the pockets of the leader of the Palmer United Party, into the pocket of Gina Rinehart, into the pocket of Twiggy Forrest, into the pockets of the lot of them. Because the one thing that the government has got control over his fossil fuel subsidies—government expenditure giving away money to the big miners. Why won't you stand up here and name the figure?

I take it from the minister that is going to sit there and stonewall and not answer because he does not want people out there in the community to know that what we are doing here is yet another big assistance to the big end of town—cost-shifting out of the community's pocket straight into the pocket of the big miners, which is exactly what we are doing here.

I will try another one to see if the minister can answer this time, since he will not answer on fugitive emissions, mining companies and coal seam gas. I ask the minister: how much of a financial benefit will accrue to Queensland Nickel by it no longer being a liable entity under the carbon price? I know you have got the figures, because the regulator has got those figures. I want to know exactly how much money is going to go and what benefit will accrue to Queensland Nickel by it no longer having to pay a carbon price. It is an important question and I would like an answer.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to sit and let Senator Cormann have an opportunity to actually jump out of his seat and answer Senator Milne's questions, but he seems very reluctant to do so. I thought this was the in committee stage, where we asked questions of the government and sought answers from them, rather than them just sitting back, sipping on their water and having all day to just take it easy. This is supposed to be a really serious and important debate. A debate faces this country. We have before us a number of amendments. We also have before us a new bill that has come from the other place. There are serious questions that need to be answered. I think it is very dishonest and disrespectful if Senator Cormann sits there and refuses to answer such questions.

I will have another go. I will ask Senator Cormann this: on 23 May 2011, the then opposition leader told the Australian people that the carbon price would be a $10 a week hit on the average person at the supermarket checkout, so will Senator Cormann stand by the now Prime Minister's promise and guarantee the people of regional Australia that their grocery bills will now fall by at least $10 a week? When exactly are you anticipating the drop in prices?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Singh. In talking to the amendment that is before the chair that was moved by Senator Singh, let me confirm that the government stands by all of the commitments that we made in the lead-up to the last election, especially and in particular the commitment to scrap this bad carbon tax that is responsible for pushing up the cost of electricity, pushing up the cost of gas, pushing of the cost of living and pushing up the cost of doing business in Australia. We stand by the Treasury modelling, which has assessed that the average household will benefit from a reduction in cost-of-living expenses of about $550 per annum.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very interested in what this average household is, how that analysis has been done and whether there have been any details undertaken as to how this supposed benefit of the removal of the carbon price will benefit ordinary families. On the $500 that has been bandied around, I seen much analysis that this will not be the case. In response to questions this week in question time, the word 'average' has been used a number of times. Is there a bottom line figure in terms of how much someone would benefit? Is $500 the average and, if it is not the average, what is the top-line benefit that you are saying people will achieve? Maybe you could tell us the definition of the average family, how you have worked that definition out for what the average family is and how you can be sure that any reduction will be passed on? Because I have got a few questions on this, maybe you can advise us, Minister, how you have determined the average family?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Cameron. The government has used the exact same definition for average household that was used by the previous government. The Treasury modelling uses the same methodology as the modelling that was done by Labor in government, when Labor assessed the impact of the carbon tax on households. You used it back then and we are using it now.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, maybe you can explain to me what that average household is instead of saying we used it. I am asking you the detail in the context of your legislation. If you are using the same definition, could you advise me what that definition is?

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously the minister is just going to sit there and not answer these questions. That is a perfectly reasonable question that has been asked. If we are just going to have stonewalling, it is complete contempt of the Senate. The committee stage of legislation is to answer direct questions. That was a direct question. So I will put it myself: in terms of the $550 average return to householders that Senator Cameron has referred to, which householders and where did the $550 come from? Did it come from Treasury modelling? If it did, will you now admit that 250 of the 550 in the modelling was on food, clothing and rent. Minister Cormann, can you tell me which part of the bill captures people selling food, people selling clothing and people offering premises for rent and makes them liable to be fined if they do not remove the tax impost? Which part of the bill?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

None of the questions that have been asked by Senator Cameron or Senator Milne just now relate in any way to the question before the chair, which is the amendment that was moved by Senator Singh on behalf of the Labor Party to rebadge the carbon tax. The government have made very clear that we do not support the amendment that was moved by the Labor Party.

What is happening here now is the Labor Party and the Greens are desperately trying to filibuster a debate that has been going on for years. This bill has come before the Senate for the third time. All of these issues have been traversed in great detail in Senate estimates, in Senate committee inquiries, in repetitive debates in this chamber over the past 10 months, and these are all issues that were canvassed in some great detail in the lead-up to the last election. The Australian people made a judgement at the last election that they wanted the carbon tax gone. You can jump up and down in here for as long as you want, trying to keep this debate going because you are desperately trying to keep a tax that the Australian people have voted to get rid of, but the government is not going to be a party to this. We are not going to be a party to this attempt by Labor and the Greens to keep going with an ongoing and unnecessary filibuster. We should get on with this, vote on the amendment that is before the chair, vote on the other amendments, and then deal with the legislation as a whole.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is typical of Senator Cormann, this arrogance towards the Senate. And it is typical, in my view, of the coalition generally—that is, arrogance towards the procedures and processes of this chamber, whose job it is to analyse the bills, whose job it is to ask the questions and whose job it is to ensure that what this government is seeking to do is in the national interest. In my view the answer that Senator Cormann has just given, that the public have voted for the repeal, would be arguable if the public had been told what this was all about. Typically, the coalition lied on this issue to the Australian public—that is, the effects of the carbon price. They lied when they said—I think everyone understands now that former Senator Joyce, when he was in here, was telling people in the bush and telling people all over Australia that it would be over $100 for a leg of lamb. What the minister is doing now is continuing the process of deceiving the Australian public. The government have come out and they have argued that a family would be $550 better off.

At one stage previously the coalition were arguing that it would be $100 for a leg of lamb, which was just an absolute fabrication and an absolute lie and a position where the public were being misled about what the carbon price would do. What I am trying to get my head around is: if the public were being misled then, why is the minister not prepared to go over these issues in some detail? Why will the minister not advise, first of all, why the $100 leg of lamb did not come about? That is something I would be interested in. Why did that leg of lamb not became a $100 leg of lamb, as the coalition told the public that it would? I would be interested to hear that position. I have got a view; I would like to hear the minister's view. My view is that it was a fabrication and a lie by the coalition. It was one of the many lies told by the coalition about the effect of the carbon price.

They have not only lied on the carbon price; they lied on a whole range of issues that go to the cost of living. It seems to me, and I am very concerned, that you can go to the public when you are in opposition, as the coalition did, and run an argument about the cost of living. You can create a fear campaign over the effects of what the economists have said is the most effective means of dealing with carbon pollution in this country, and that is to put a market price on carbon. That is what we did. We took advice on this issue. We took advice on what was the most cost-effective means of dealing with carbon, and that cost-effective means was offset by support for families to take them through the introduction of the carbon price. Now we have the minister standing here this morning with no cost-benefit analysis and with no facts, simply saying that the average family would be $550 better off. Well, if the leg of lamb did not reach $100, how can anyone trust the government on anything they say in relation to the carbon price?

The issue that the government needs to deal with is the complete lack of trust that the community now has in this government. In my view, the argument that you have got a mandate, as you argued here, and that the public says you can do that is so much codswallop. It is absolute nonsense. You have a mandate based on an absolute lie, and the only way you can recover is to lay out in detail what the exact position is. Who is the average family? What does the average family look like? Where will the gains be made by that average family? Why are you now moving away from a position where everyone would get $550 to a position arguing that some will get more and some will get less? I know why you are doing it. It is because there has been absolutely no cost-benefit analysis done on this proposition that you have put up.

This is legislation based on an ideology that says: 'We're all right. In our lifetime we might get through this problem without doing anything serious about climate change.' We know what Mr Turnbull said about this government's position. We know that Mr Turnbull, in his heart—and I would say Senator Birmingham, who has looked at this somewhat seriously over a period of time—would know that all the advice that came to government was that the most effective means of dealing with a carbon pollution position in this country was for the market to put the price on carbon.

So I would be interested to know why the government, who professes the strength and the role of the market so vociferously, day in day out, would move from a market-based approach on pricing carbon to this nonsense of Direct Action—a policy that is absolutely linked in the overall position that the government takes: get rid of the price on carbon and put in this so-called Direct Action. I am still interested in why the $100 leg of lamb did not eventuate. Was that factored in to the $550 saving that would be made through the repeal of a price on carbon? Has the Direct Action program being costed, because it is directly linked to the repeal of the carbon price? How does that Direct Action program relate to the overall situation? How can we be sure that Direct Action will do anything? What is the cost of the bureaucracy that is being set up around Direct Action, because these are all costs? Is there an implication for the cost saving that families get—this $550 cost saving that a family gets? Is that less because you are setting up this huge bureaucracy to deal with Direct Action? What is the cost of Direct Action? What are the implications of Direct Action on the savings that you claim families will make? How many bureaucrats will be actually dealing with Direct Action? How many bureaucrats are being set up? What discussions has the government had with industry in relation to the type of projects Direct Action would take into account? Will the type of project have an effect on that $550 that you claim the average family will save?

You cannot tell us what average family is, you cannot tell us about the $550, you cannot tell us about the effect of the bureaucracy—you cannot seem to tell us about a whole range of costs and benefits. What discussions have you had with the industry that would lead you to believe that Direct Action and the repeal of the carbon tax would have an impact on families incomes? Will there be a reduction in power prices? Or will, as every commentator says, power prices were not solely increase due to the carbon price and that they will be a continuation of increased power prices in this country? You cannot now, when you are in government, just simply run the lies that were promoted. Some people in my view voted for the coalition on the basis that their electricity prices would go down. We are absolutely know that that is not going to be the case.

we hear other arguments. I would be interested to hear where all these jobs were going to be lost over a small imposition. Does the minister accept that the imposition of the carbon price was much less in its impact on the economy than the imposition of the GST? That is what, I think, Dr Ken Henry, when he was secretary of the Treasury, said.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One-third.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, one-third of the impact. Is that correct? I would like to hear that, because when we are dealing with these issues we need to know the context of how we are dealing with it. One-third of the impact of the GST.

I would like you to comment on the Treasury modelling that was done when the carbon price was introduced. As I understand it from the estimates committee—Senator Cormann, I am sure you were there on several occasions, along with me—we were told continually by the same people who are advising you now that the implication for jobs was minor, that employment would continue to grow over the period of the carbon price and that wage increases would continue to grow over the period of the carbon price. These are all big issues. And what I believe the public thought about the carbon price was very successfully prosecuted by the coalition—I think people will look at this in the years ahead and say, 'What was this all about'—and it led the public to believe that jobs would be lost across the economy, that jobs would be lost because of the carbon price. I have not heard anything about the jobs that will be lost because of this decision that you are making in terms of the capacity for our industry to decarbonise and create jobs for the future. I would be interested in your view on that. I would be interested in the modelling that was done that was quite unequivocal that this was a small impact on the economy, completely at odds with the impression that the coalition have left in relation to what the real impact is. The impact that you have argued out there publicly is at odds with the Treasury modelling that I was advised of and that you were advised of.

The environmental implications, in my view, are significant in terms of us not playing a proper role. As the former Prime Minister John Howard argued, we should play a leading role in a worldwide attempt to deal with the impact of climate change. So there are a number of issues that I am interested in. Again I ask: what is the average family? What is that $100 leg of lamb impact? Why didn't it reach $100? Was that simply a lie by the coalition, as everyone else—you should just concede that point; it was part of a fear campaign. How do you deal with the modelling issue? How do you deal with the issue of the market being the most efficient and effective way to deal with it? How do you deal with the criticism of Mr Turnbull in relation to your fig leaf of a policy—that is Mr Turnbull's view. How do you deal with all of those issues when you claim a mandate?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister can perhaps answer my questions at the same time, if he can find a question amongst that 15-minute filibuster by Senator Cameron just now. I do have a genuine question that the minister may be able to address.

I cannot let it pass by without commenting about Senator Cameron lecturing anybody about alleged lies. We all know, every Australian knows, that Senator Cameron's former leader, Ms Gillard, promised, hand on heart, before the 2010 election there 'will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. When we suggested that was not true, the then Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Swan, said that we were scaremongering by even suggesting it. So for Senator Cameron to lecture anybody about alleged lies is just outrageous. And anyone who might be listening to this broadcast should just understand that when they hear from Senator Cameron and from Senator Milne they are full of misinformation, incorrect assertions—anything to scare the Australian public about the decision the Australian public made in September last year. You could not have got a clearer expression of intent from the Australian public. Every Australian knew that the last election was to be a referendum on the carbon tax.

Senator Cameron, I ask you how many senators you lost at the last election. How many members of the lower house did you lose at the last election? Australians knew what they wanted. They voted accordingly. I get disgusted at the filibustering by all speakers so far this morning—apart from Senator Cormann, I might say. It is just an absolute filibuster to ask questions that have been asked dozens of times before. Answers have been given on numerous occasions and this is just a filibuster.

I want to address some serious questions to the minister because this is what the committee stage is about. When Senator Milne talked about QNI she reminded me of something. Is the minister aware of the impact of the carbon tax on Queensland Nickel, in Townsville? This is a metals refinery that employs hundreds of my fellow Australians and, more importantly, hundreds of people in the Townsville district, where I have my office. I know the fear of the workers at QNI around the impact that things like the carbon tax would have on that particular facility. I wonder if the minister can tell me how many people are working at QNI. The minister may not have these details readily at hand. If not, I would be happy for him to take this on notice and perhaps get back to me some other time. I would like to know how many are employed at QNI and what the impact of the carbon price would be. Were there rumours circulating around Townsville that Queensland Nickel would have to shut down because of the impost of the carbon tax on all aspects of that business? Does the minister have any details of the impact on the Townsville community if QNI had had to shut down because of the carbon tax and of the burden on their operations that the carbon tax caused right throughout?

I also ask the minister: is he aware that, in addition to QNI, there is a modern zinc refinery in Townsville run by Suns Metal? One of the big problems with Suns Metal is, again, the impact of carbon tax on electricity and other costs. I wonder if the minister can tell me how many jobs there are at Suns Metal, the zinc refinery in Townsville, and what the impact of carbon tax might be on that particular entity.

I also ask Minister Cormann, along the same line: is he aware that Copper Refineries Pty Ltd operate a copper refinery in Townsville? Is the minister aware of how many jobs are there? How much did the carbon tax impact on the decision of Xstrata-Glencore to eventually phase that out because of the cost of electricity and other costs? I also wonder if the minister would be aware and has any detail of the impact that jobs in those three refineries have on the North Queensland economy.

The minister may not have this information, but I will ask anyhow: is he aware of which union it is that looks after the workers at the copper refinery, at Queensland Nickel and at the zinc refinery? Is he aware if those unions have had anything to say about the impact of the carbon tax on the operation of those three huge employers in the Townsville region?

While I am at it, I ask the minister if he could give me any indication of the loss of jobs in the coalmining industry in the Bowen Basin—again, near where I live—that have resulted from the carbon tax. I ask the minister whether he could indicate whether those job losses are directly related to the carbon tax or the mining tax. I do not want to get into the mining tax—that is a debate for another day—but I just want to know whether the minister has details of the reported job losses. I am not sure whether the minister has that detail. If not, I would be happy for him to take the question on notice. Clearly, there have been reported huge job losses—I know about it from constituents who have spoken to me—in the Bowen Basin coal fields area.

I wonder if the minister would be aware of which union is supposedly looking after the interests of coal miners in the Bowen Basin.

Senator Lines interjecting—

I think one of the Labor senators indicted which union it was. Perhaps the minister will not have to look that up. Perhaps the Labor senators would know that it is the CFMEU. Perhaps they could tell us what submissions the CFMEU made to the Labor Party in relation to the job losses directly as a result of the carbon tax, and perhaps the mining tax as well.

I know the Labor Party have promised, in a pre-election brochure, to abolish the carbon tax, which makes me wonder why we are here, now, filibustering to prevent the Labor Party from being able to vote to abolish the carbon tax as they promised to do. I do not want to join Labor and the Greens in filibustering. I have asked my questions. If the minister is able to provide them I would appreciate answers. If there are some that the minister has to take on notice, I would be happy to get those answers later on.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Macdonald—a distinguished, long-serving senator from the great state of Queensland—very much for his questions, unlike Senator Cameron, who spent 15 minutes asking a few questions as part of the Labor-Green filibuster only to bolt out of the chamber before I had a chance to answer. At least Senator Macdonald is asking genuine and legitimate questions and—unlike Senator Cameron—is genuinely interested in the answers.

Senator Macdonald suggested that Labor had promised, in the lead-up to the last election, that they would abolish the carbon tax. They actually went further. They promised to abolish not just the carbon tax. I have a flyer here authorised by George Wright, the national secretary of the Labor Party. This is what it says. 'Kevin Rudd and Labor removed the carbon tax.' They suggested to the Australian people that it had already happened. In fact, on the front page it has something like a supermarket receipt, which shows the price of gala apples at $5.12 and the price of eggs at $4.02. And then it says 'carbon tax'. And do know what it says next to carbon tax? It says 'abolished'.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finish the sentence: '…replaced with an ETS.'

Senator Lines interjecting—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lines is up there at the back interjecting, 'We said that we would replace it with an emissions trading scheme. That is not true, Senator Lines. There is no fine print. I challenge you to show me on this flyer that was distributed to households across Australia where it says that your removal of the carbon tax—your abolition of the carbon tax—was, in any way, contingent on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. There is no fine print here anywhere. It does not say that. You deliberately set out to mislead the Australian people in the lead-up to the last election. You knew that your carbon tax was toxic.

In a desperate attempt at the last minute to save some votes, you went out to deliberately mislead the Australian people about your intentions. You explicitly said that the carbon tax had been abolished. You explicitly said that Kevin Rudd and Labor had removed the carbon tax. You explicitly said, 'Kevin Rudd and Labor have removed the carbon tax, saving the average family $380.'

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder where that figure came from, Senator Macdonald—a $380 saving per year. The then Treasurer, Chris Bowen—a short-term Treasurer for a little period in the interregnum between then Prime Minister Gillard and the change of government at the election—put out a press release. He said that Labor's changes would result in:

… a reduction in the cost of living worth around $380 to an average household next financial year …

So it was just for one year. Even though Kevin Rudd at various press conferences suggested that it would be every year, year on year, that was, of course, not true. In his press release, then Treasurer Bowen said that the move to make the changes that Labor was suggesting was:

… expected to save the average household around $3 a week, or over $150 in the year, on its electricity bills and around $1.10 per week, or $57 over the year, on its gas bills, providing much needed cost of living relief to many households.

In this press release, to give due credit to then Treasurer Bowen, the fine print is there, but it was not in the propaganda that was sent by the Labor Party—by George Wright out of the national secretariat of the Labor Party—to the Australian people. In the press release that not many people would have read, the fine print is there, and they say they would have saved Australians $380 in year one through the changes they were proposing. But, of course, all Labor were proposing was to re-badge and modify the carbon tax. Those modifications, they said, would save $380 a year for an average household.

We have used the exact same modelling and the exact same methodology but on the basis of scrapping the carbon tax altogether rather than just re-badging it. We stand by the estimates in the Treasury modelling that the average Australian household will be $550 a year better off. So I give that response directly to the questions that were put to me, before he bolted out of the chamber, by Senator Cameron as part of his 15-minute filibuster.

He also asserted that there would be more jobs under the carbon tax. Again, he is not telling the whole truth. The Labor government's own modelling showed that jobs growth would be lower—that there would be fewer jobs as a result of the carbon tax. Labor's own Treasury modelling in government of the impact of their carbon tax showed that the economy was expected to grow by $1 trillion less to 2050 in 2011 dollars. That is nearly a whole year's GDP for the whole of Australia. Really, the practical effect of Labor's carbon tax was that, in the 38 years to 2050, the whole of Australia would be expected to work for nothing, effectively, for a whole year in order to pay the price of Labor's carbon tax. How ridiculous is that! Senator Cameron also suggested that real wages would continue to grow under Labor's carbon tax—not true. Labor's own Treasury modelling actually showed real cuts in wages as a result of Labor's carbon tax.

Senator Macdonald asked me about Queensland Nickel. I am somewhat familiar with Queensland Nickel and they are, of course, a significant employer in Senator Macdonald's community, around Townsville. I believe that they employ about 1,000 Australians in North Queensland. Of course, whether it is Queensland Nickel or any other business across Australia that is involved in manufacturing processes or the like, if you impose a cost on them that is not imposed on the businesses that we compete with in China and other parts of the world, you make it easier for those businesses overseas to take market share away from us. We want Australian businesses to be successful. We want every Australian business to be as successful as it possibly can be so that it can employ more Australians, provide more opportunities to Australians and provide them with real increases in wages on the back of strong performance. That is what we want to see.

Whether it is Queensland Nickel or the zinc refinery or the copper refinery—or any other such processing facilities all around Australia, including aluminium production and the like—whenever you impose a self-inflicted cost here in Australia that is not faced by our competitors, you are making it harder for Australian business to succeed. You are making it harder for Australian business to employ more Australians. That is one of the key reasons why we want to scrap this bad tax. It is one of the key reasons why the Australian people overwhelmingly voted to get rid of this tax.

Senator Macdonald asked me what unions might be active in these areas. I do not know this for certain, but I am led to believe that the Australian Workers Union might be present on that site. I remember that the long-time national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, went out into the public domain saying that if only one job was lost as a result of the carbon tax, he would campaign against it. He went very quiet very quickly after that because, at the end of the day, when it comes to the political interests of the Labor Party there is a symbiotic relationship between them and the union movement. The unions are not all that focused on the interests of workers when it comes to ill-thought-out, misguided ideology like imposing a destructive tax which does not make a difference to the environment but which hurts real Australians—whether it is through increases in the costs of living or putting their jobs a risk.

I will go back, at a very high level, to some of the other issues raised. We have gone through this debate for a very long time now. This has gone around and around in circles. All these issues were widely canvassed for a number of years in the lead-up to the last election. They have been widely canvassed in two extensive debates in the Senate so far. We are now having a third debate in relation to this, after an election where the Australian people passed a very clear judgement. If the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens political party want to continue to act in defiance of the will of the Australian people that is a matter for them, but as far as the government is concerned, we will not be complicit in facilitating a continuing and ongoing filibuster. That is why I will only rise to answer questions that have not previously been canvassed and that are actually relevant to the question before the chair, which is the Labor Party proposal not to scrap the carbon tax but to rebadge it.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Temporary Chairman Back, I am keen to get a ruling from you—with the clerk's assistance—about what Senator Cormann just told us. He said, in answer to a set of questions posed to him by Senator Cameron earlier, that he would refuse to respond to anything that was not directly relevant to the question before the chair, which at the moment is an opposition amendment.

He was then quite happy to respond to Senator Macdonald's stream of consciousness up to and including questions about union coverage of various industries. None of that is remotely relevant to Senator Singh's amendment. I am just testing with you, Temporary Chairman, that Senator Cormann is entirely in order to range as freely as he likes in his responses, and that we on the cross benches and the opposition benches, are also entirely in order to ask general questions relevant to the bill, whether they relate to the specific amendment or not.

I have been participating in debates like these for six years, and in the committee stage we are able to ask questions and test the government on specifics of the bill and ask general questions at any stage during this committee debate. I am just seeking your guidance, Chair.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the advice of the chamber, obviously there is a wide-ranging opportunity for questions to be asked and for the minister to respond. From my listening to it, that is in order but, as all senators would understand, I cannot direct the minister in how he responds. Senator Ludlam, would you care to continue?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to yield to Senator Milne. But the next time that the minister refuses to answer a question on the basis that it is not relevant to the amendment I ask that you call him to order. He is not able to refuse a legitimate question from an opposition or cross-bench senator on that basis.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Ludlam, it is not within the powers of the chair to do that.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to go to some specifics. We heard a moment ago from Senator Cormann that the government stands by its claim that $550, on average, will go to families. I asked a specific question and I would like a specific answer. Will people who sell food and clothing and people who rent properties be able to be fined if they do not remove the tax impost? It is a critical question because Minister Greg Hunt also said that people could fined—airlines could be fined, supermarkets could be fined and landfill operators could be fined. The legal advice I have is that that is a load of nonsense and that all they are subject to are provisions, if they make any misleading statement. They cannot be fined if they do not remove the carbon tax impost. They can keep the carbon tax impost. So if airlines, supermarkets, landfill operators, any other food sellers, people selling clothing or people offering places for rent do not remove any so-called tax impost they will not be required to do so. If they make a misleading statement about what they have done, then they could be fined. But my understanding of this matter is that they will not be captured, contrary to what Minister Hunt said.

I think it is a pretty important question. The government have been taken in by the Palmer United Party. We have heard all kinds of claims about how they are going to make all these businesses give back any carbon tax impost and how they will be fined if they do not and that they will have to do it. Well, they won't—they don't. They are not captured by this legislation at all. This is a great big showmanship exercise from both the government and the Palmer United Party. The fact of the matter is that the airlines do not have to pass on the tax impost and suffer a fine, only if they lie about it. That is my understanding and I would like a clear clarification about that. Will they be fined if they do not remove the carbon tax impost? Or is it the fact that they will only be fined if they mislead the public in relation to that?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, everything that Minister Hunt has said in relation to this matter is absolutely right and the government stands by Minister Hunt's accurate assertions in relation to this matter. Secondly, we stand by the Treasury modelling, which indicates that an average household will be about $550 a year better off as a result of scrapping the Labor-Greens carbon tax. Thirdly, and finally, the ACCC already has general powers in relation to price gouging, including dealing with misleading representations across all sectors of the economy. But of course I know that Senator Milne would be very well aware of this. This is just part of a deliberate strategy by Labor and the Greens to keep alive for a bit longer a tax that the Australian people have voted to get rid of and that the Australian government is determined to get rid of.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would concur with the comments that Senator Cameron made earlier this morning in his questions to the minister, which I think still remain unanswered at this point. As I heard those questions, they certainly seemed very genuine to me. They have not yet been answered. I think he asked three or four questions during the time he was speaking.

The key point in Senator Cameron's questions or in the lead-up to the questions is all the misinformation that is around. I have got some questions for Senator Cormann on the impact of Direct Action. Like the Greens, I am very concerned about the costs, how we determine where those costs are coming from and the fines regime. I also have some questions around Direct Action.

I would like to quote Prime Minister Tony Abbott, before he became Prime Minister, when, on 27 April 2011, he put on the Liberal Party website:

… Whyalla will be wiped off the map by Julia Gillard’s carbon tax. Whyalla risks becoming a ghost town, an economic wasteland, if this carbon tax goes ahead and that’s true not just of Whyalla, it’s also true of Port Pirie, it’s true of Gladstone, it’s true of communities in the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra in New South Wales, it’s true of Kwinana in Western Australia, it’s true of the La Trobe Valley, Portland, places like that in Victoria. There’s not a state and there’s hardly a region in this country that wouldn’t have major communities devastated by a carbon tax if this goes ahead …

If that is not a blatant untruth, I do not know what is. I heard Senator Back—also a Western Australian senator—in this chamber talking last week about Kwinana. I can assure our Prime Minister that Kwinana is alive and well and thriving and has not been devastated by the carbon tax. I can assure people listening to this broadcast—and indeed some of them live in those towns—that those towns are alive and well and not devastated by the carbon tax. When our Prime Minister comes out and makes those sorts of claims when he is in opposition, how can people have confidence in any of the information the government is now putting out about the carbon tax?

In relation to Labor's ETS amendment that was before the committee earlier this morning, the Australian public also knows very well that the Howard government was a supporter of an emissions trading scheme. Mr Howard, who the government likes to revere and often refers to, was a supporter of an emissions trading scheme. And, indeed, it would appear that in the past our Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, has also been a supporter of an emissions trading scheme. I heard Senator Cormann this morning state categorically that the government would not accept Labor's amendment for an emissions trading scheme.

I am failing to understand that. If the government are trying to put truth into this argument, an emissions trading scheme is something that the government have accepted in the past. Certainly Mr Howard accepted it. Indeed, our Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, is on the record as saying that an emissions trading scheme is a good scheme, a scheme that is used in other countries and a scheme that he thinks has some merit. All of us in the chamber are well aware of the views of the government's environment minister, Mr Hunt, on an ETS. When he was a student he wrote many, many papers commending an emissions trading scheme. So why the government is now just, point-blank, saying no to this is such a mystery.

Countries around the world that we often follow or look to for policies have emissions trading schemes in place, but I am yet to find a country that has a direct action policy. I like to refer to it more as a 'no direction' policy. It does not have any science supporting it, according to the research that I have done. There does not seem to be any credible science at all that suggests that direct action is the way to go. Not only that but it is a scattergun approach. You apply for some funds. If you are successful, you will be given those funds, so we could have little tiny schemes with tree planting in one area and nothing in another area.

At the core of direct action—and this makes it unacceptable if Australia is going to be a leader in clean energy, as we were under Labor, and if we are not going back to the dark ages, to be one of those outlier countries—is the fact that it completely lets off the big polluters. There will just be open slather. Once the government removes the legal cap on pollution, it is just open slather for those big polluters. And do you know what, Minister Cormann? Trees are just not going to cut it. Planting trees will just not cut it. There is no scientific basis to the direct action policy and I would be interested to know who thought it up, who supports it, what it is going to cost and what the impacts are. None of that has been put out there. The policy has been around for a very long time, yet it has no credible scientific base.

It is good to have three Western Australian senators in the chamber, including Senator Back in the chair and Senator Cormann opposite, but this morning the West Australian reports that, according to the explanatory memorandum concerning the PUP amendments, it will cost business $4,640 per year in compliance costs, and this from a government that goes on and on about red and green tape. The West Australiancertainly not a friend of the Labor Party or, indeed, Labor governments; it is more a friend of the coalition—is asking that question. That is a figure in the explanatory memorandum around the bill. This is $4,640 per annum as increased costs to business as a result of what the government has before the parliament today.

So it is not about a $100 leg of lamb, which was an extraordinary claim by Mr Joyce. It is along the lines of saying that towns across Australia, economic hubs like Kwinana, would just be shut down. Those are extraordinary claims and they are claims made by political parties that do not have the science to back up what they are doing. The legislation that Labor put in place was scientifically based and did have credibility. We never made claims about a $100 leg of lamb or that every state and territory in Australia would see towns completely wiped out. Those are ludicrous claims. If leading scientists in other countries heard those sorts of claims, they would be laughing—we would be a laughing-stock. The government is now putting Australia in the position of being a laughing-stock.

So I ask particularly, in relation to the explanatory memorandum, as reported in the West Australian this morning, about this increase to business of $4,640 in compliance costs. Again, where is the reduction in red tape? We hear every day in this chamber that the government is all about reducing red tape. I want to know if that figure cited by the West Australianand I assume the West Australian has it right—has come from the explanatory memorandum. How was that cost arrived at? Where does that cost come from? Why isn't the government being a little more up-front about that massive increased cost to business? Four thousand six hundred and forty dollars per annum is a massive impost on businesses. We know in the Australian community that our businesses are small businesses. What runs the Australian economy is small business. What an impost!

Businesses, and certainly businesses in Western Australia and on the thriving Kwinana strip, which has not been devastated by the carbon tax and is still operating, must be reeling this morning when they see that the government has imposed yet another cost on them, with no consultation at all. A deal was done in the corridors outside of the Senate, in the darkness of night. There was no consultation with the business community and no indication from the Abbott government that it was about to impose a big, fat, new tax—an imposition—on the business community. The government says it is about jobs and that it wants to build the economy but sees fit, because it is so intent on pushing through the repeal of Labor's clean energy bills, to have a complete disregard of the business community and a complete disregard of small businesses, particularly those in Western Australia, which I represent, and impose a new cost of $4,640.

Last night, representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which represents businesses in Western Australia, where here. I wonder if they asked the government ministers and members who were present at that function why the government sees fit to impose this massive, big, new, fat compliance cost of $4,640 on businesses.

I would be interested to know why the government sees fit to just vote this down—as I am presuming will happen. I do not want to put words into Senator Cormann's mouth, but I did hear him say that the government was not going to support Labor's amendment. I would really be interested to know why a scheme which has science behind it, which is well thought out, which is fair, which is not a scattergun, which looks at what big polluters are doing and says to polluters, 'Yes, we want you in our economy but there is a cost to doing in business in Australia, because we want a community and an environment that is fit to live in,' is not supported by the government.

The government seem to have lost sight that we live in a community. The government seem to think that we live in an economy and it is all about the big end of town and big business. I think that is demonstrated by this $4,640 per annum compliance cost burden that they have just imposed on small businesses across the country—with no consultation. It was a last minute deal done in the corridors out there to enable them to move their legislation forward. If that is not cheating the Australian voters, I do not know what is. That is not what the coalition said they would do when they were opposition. They never said, 'Guess what, small businesses in Australia, we are going to increase your costs by $4,640 per annum. We are going to put that cost on you.' They said quite the reverse—and they also made the ridiculous statements about the cost of a leg of lamb and that all of these towns across the country were seemingly going to be wiped off the map. But, no, now their deal has left Australian businesses worse off.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say hypocrisy, thy name is Labor. For a Labor senator in this chamber to have the gall to talk about compliance costs for business when our measure before the Senate to scrap the carbon tax will actually save business $85.3 million per annum, year in and year out, in reduced compliance costs—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will save $85.3 million a year every year—year in and year out. Senator Line comes in here and somehow suggests, 'Ooh, the west discovered something that the government was trying to hide.' We tried so badly to hide it that it is actually spelt out in great detail in our explanatory memorandum. If Senator Line had—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I am not sure if it is a point of order, but my name is 'Lines' with an 's' on the end—thank you.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I appreciate that, and I will draw that to the minister's attention.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise to Senator Lines. I put it down to my inadequate capacity to pronounce English words appropriately as a non-English speaking background senator in this chamber. But that intervention does not take away the fact that Senator Lines has put to the chamber that we have somehow tried to hide the fact that we are taking measures to ensure that the big end of town—as the Labor Party like to call it—passes through the benefit of the cost reductions that come with scrapping the carbon tax to consumers and to small business. For Senator Lines to come in here and criticise us for that, when the compliance burden on businesses across the whole economy that we are getting rid is worth $85.3 million a year, really is quite extraordinary.

Consistent with the approach of Senator Cameron, she took a full 15 minutes to repeat ad nauseam the same question over and over. What we have here is a Labor-Green filibuster—a filibuster from a Labor-Green opposition who clearly still cannot accept the verdict of the Australian people at the last election. Senator Lines, the reason I know what you are doing is that I have been there—I have been exactly where you are sitting now. I have run these sorts of debate out of opposition, and I know exactly what you are doing. I know that you are trying to run down the clock—and, clearly, you are keen to still be here on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, because we will stay here until this legislation is dealt with. We will stay here until the Australian Senate has finally accepted the will of the Australian people as expressed at the last election.

Senator Lines quoted certain talking points and it looked like they had been emailed to her by Mr Shorten's office. She was reading them from her IPhone. I was going to ask at some point whether Senator Lines could table the document that she was reading from but, given that it was an email that was sent to her either by Mr Shorten's office or her own electorate office, I guess that would be difficult. I would have liked to have seen the context within which those particular remarks were made. But, when it comes to claims in relation to Whyalla—and I see my good friend and valued colleague—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I would seek your guidance on this. I am not sure if it is a point of order, but I did quote the context. I gave the date on which the now Prime Minister made that comment and the place I found it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Lines, that is a debating point; not a point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to see my good friend and valued colleague from Western Australia. The federal member for Brand is here in the chamber with us. If I am not mistaken, I believe he is a proud son of the town of Whyalla. He is nodding—just for the benefit of Hansard. Guess who made the claim that, as a result of Labor's carbon tax, Whyalla would be wiped off the map. Guess who made that claim. It was none other than the state secretary of the Australian Workers Union. That is who made that claim. I remember it well, and it was followed shortly by none other than the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, as reported on the front page of the Australian,saying, 'If one single job is lost as a result of the carbon tax, I will oppose it.' But, of course, that did not last very long.

There are good people in the Labor Party. I am a great believer that there are very good people on all sides of politics. All of us are trying to do the right thing in the national interest. We come at it from different perspectives, but fundamentally we all want to do the right thing. And I believe that there are still people in the Labor Party who care for workers. I believe that there are still people in the Labor Party who care about stronger growth and who care about opportunities for everyone to get ahead. But you had better get rid of that green tinge in the Labor Party, because it is against the national interest for us to continue to have taxes that are based on—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. This is the committee stage and what we are witnessing is a filibuster.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Milne. That was not a point of order. Resume, Minister, and please address the question.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party and the Greens in this chamber cannot accept the facts. They come in here and give 15-minute speeches, repeating the same question ad nauseam, repeating the same erroneous assertions ad nauseam, and when I come in here to provide a response to the political attack points and to some of the questions which have been put, I get interrupted by point of order after point of order. Senator Lines made the point that the Howard government in 2007 supported an emissions trading scheme. That is, of course, true, but guess what? The world has changed since 2007. To put it in language you might understand, you might remember a guy called John Maynard Keynes. I know that people on the other side of the chamber are all in favour of Keynesian economics when it suits them. To use the words of John Maynard Keynes, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?'

Remember when former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd went to Copenhagen? He was desperate to get the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme through the parliament before he went off on his 'Kevin 747' jumbo jet to do a deal to ensure there were carbon pricing agreements right across the world because Kevin was going to fix it. But guess what? He failed. It was very clear after Copenhagen that there was no prospect of an appropriately comprehensive global agreement to price carbon. Remember the absolutely outrageous way in which former Prime Minister Rudd described our friends from China who were also participating in that particular conference—an outrageous and completely unbecoming way for an Australian Prime Minister to refer to our friends in China? What became clear in Copenhagen was that there was no prospect of an appropriately comprehensive global agreement to price carbon. In the circumstances, we made a judgment on Australia's national interest.

In the absence of an appropriately comprehensive global agreement to price emissions in the way suggested, in the absence of any likelihood that that will change at any time in the future, you have to remember that Labor in 2008-09 was trying to say to us that the carbon price modelling was based on an assertion that the United States would have a fully-fledged emissions trading scheme, equivalent to the Australian scheme, in place by 2010. Guess what? It did not happen. Then the next modelling suggested I believe that they would have one in place in either 2015 or 2016. Guess what? It will not happen. So just accept the facts.

Accept that the facts have changed. Accept that the government made a judgment on what is in the national interest. Accept that we made a judgment that we do not want to impose sacrifices on the community, that we do not want to weaken our economy for something that does not make a difference to the environment. We can continue to go around and around in circles and continue to go through the debate which we had ad nauseam in the lead-up to the last election, on which the Australian people passed judgment. Senator Lines asked who is supporting our policy. Guess what? Here in Australia we have a very old-fashioned way to assess what policy propositions are being supported and it is called an election. There was an election in September last year. The election result was very clear. You might not like it. You might not accept it. You might be unhappy about it, but at the end of the day it is the job of the government to deliver on the commitments we made to the Australian people in the lead-up to the last election and that is what we will do.

You can give us as many 15-minute rants, repeating the same question ad nauseam to keep this debate going into next week. It will make no difference. We will not stop until this terrible carbon tax is gone. We will not stop until we have delivered the benefits to families, to pensioners and to our economy which come with scrapping this bad tax.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian community was left in huge confusion last week because on Thursday Mr Hunt and Minister Abetz said that they would accept the Palmer United Party amendments in full and legislate them. I said on Friday that there was no way that would happen once the Australian Government Solicitor had a look at them and that is exactly what has happened. Over the weekend, they changed. They have now been incorporated into this government legislation but the community and business are still really confused as to what it means.

So I do not appreciate the minister not being specific about this because I can tell you that out there people who sell clothing, supermarkets, airlines and the general community do not understand who is going to be made, forced, to have a legal obligation to take the price off carbon, who is going to have to report what they do and who is going to be captured by it? My questions are very specific. I would like answers to them but each is quite clear that, if we do this in the normal way where I would ask some questions, the minister would answer and we would go through it, that is not going to happen because filibusters are going to be set up. So I am going to have to go through the questions now and I would like the advisers to provide answers to the minister because I can tell you the answer I had just a minute ago from the minister does not make sense to me. I do not believe it is the right response under the legals and I think we need to know.

The Palmer United Party has gone out there and told the community that these amendments will require every business which puts a price on carbon to take it off or they will be subject to these penalties. In fact, that is not the case, as I read the legislation, and I think the community needs to know. I am going to put a series of specific questions to the minister and I would like specific answers. The first one goes to the cost-of-living estimate. The minister said he stands by the $550 estimate. The Treasury modelling says $250 of that $550 is comprised of food, clothing and rent. Given that my understanding of the legislation is that people who sell food, clothing and rent will have no legal obligation to take the price off carbon under these bills, then the $550 cannot stand. At best it would have to be a $300 estimate if indeed the only people captured under this legislation are, as other government ministers have said, electricity and gas retailers. I would like some specifics here in answer that particular question. I want to go through the rest because there is also a lack of clarity out there, particularly in relation to synthetic greenhouse gases.

Minister Hunt and the Prime Minister went to a business in Canberra called Frozpak and said that, because refrigerant gases were going to triple in price, the cost impact of the carbon price to Frozpak was going to be $60,000 a year. My understanding from reading this legislation is that the ACCC will: have no power at all to, firstly, require Frozpak to show how the savings have been passed on; or, secondly, have no power to fine them. I want to get clarity on this, because Frozpak would be a pretty typical business in the area of refrigeration and so on. I want to know who is captured by that, because my understanding is that it is in relation only to misleading statements and in relation only to price exploitation.

I want to go through some other specific ones. In the definition in 60A an electricity retailer is: 'any other entity who produces electricity in Australia'. That is the definition. I ask the government: who—other than licensed retailers in the states and territories—is the government trying to capture in this catch-all provision? In terms of 'any other entity that produces electricity in Australia', apart from licensed retailers in the states and territories, who is being captured? I ask this because, if a household has a solar panel on their roof—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you here for the filibuster, mate?

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are not filibusters. These are direct questions.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Mr Chair—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Milne, please continue.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chair, I think what has happened here is that the government has conned the Palmer United Party into thinking these provisions apply all over the place, when they do not. The government knows that this is all over the place and will be subject to legal challenges. When the legal challenges come, the whole lot will fall over. The government will have got what it wanted, the abolition of the carbon price, and the Palmer United Party will look stupid for having made a complete mess of it. But the government does not care because they have got what they want. That is why I want answers to these questions.

So: if a household has a solar panel on their roof and they are selling their electrons back to their retailer, and therefore have to comply with division 2A, they are committing a strict liability offence of between $65,000 and $85,000 for not providing substantiation notices. The same thing will occur to a hospital with a co-generation plant it feeds into the grid or another building. Minister, is it true that, if they are 'another entity that produces electricity in Australia'—if you have a solar panel on your roof or a co-gen operation that sells into the grid—you are going to be subject to a fine of between $65,000 and $85,000 if you do not provide a substantiation notice? That is a specific question.

My second question is: is there a difference between 'synthetic gas importer' and a 'bulk synthetic greenhouse gas importer' in the definitions? Or, is it anyone who holds an import licence? How many holders of import licences are there in Australia? How many customers do those licence holders have? What volume of expected greenhouse gas emissions do these licence holders control?

The threshold for the ACCC to bring a legal action under proposed section 60C is that price exploitation must be 'unreasonably high'. Can the minister outline what sort of exploitation, in terms of carbon gouging and pricing, is going to be deemed or classed as 'unreasonably high' for the purposes of the ACCC being able to bring legal action? Does the minister agree that, by definition, price exploitation can occur if it is 'high' but 'reasonable'? What is the difference between 'unreasonably high' and exploitation that is 'high' but that the government or the ACCC deems to be 'reasonable'?

What is envisaged in section 60C of an 'indirect cost saving attributable to the carbon price'? Why is it needed beyond a 'direct cost saving'? All of these provisions refer to 'direct costs' and 'indirect costs', but 'indirect costs' are not defined. So I would like from the government the definition, the understanding, of what 'indirect costs' attributable to the carbon price are, for the purposes of all these substantiation notices and documents and the like? And why is it there? Why isn't it just the direct cost saving which should be able to be measured?

Further: are there any synthetic greenhouse gas manufacturers in Australia? If so, why don't they have to comply with these provisions? Why is it only people who are importing? Why isn't it people who are here manufacturing?

In section 60CA, how was the 250 per cent figure arrived at? Is the government concerned it will be an inadequate penalty for a company? For example, if a pensioner is ripped off by $200 and somebody makes the assumption that that is an 'unreasonably high' rip-off, then they will have to pay the Commonwealth $500. In that scenario, would the Commonwealth pay the pensioner $200 or $500 or nothing? There is no legal obligation to actually pay anything.

An electricity retailer will commit a strict liability offence if they do not inform their customer of the expected cost savings. Do they have to inform all their customers directly? Or is putting something on their website sufficient to fulfil the requirement of 60FE? People want to know that. People want to know: does this mean they have to directly send something to every one of their customers, or do they only have to put a notice up on their website, or one circular at one time and that is deemed to be complying with the regulations? These are serious questions that people want answered. I can tell you that people out there with solar panels on their roof have been onto me, saying: 'Why are we captured by this? Do we have to put in a substantiation notice?' That is why I have an amendment; to clarify that. I will be going to that shortly.

I want to go back to the issue of how an electricity retailer might commit a strict liability offence if they do not inform their customers of the expected cost savings. If they have to inform them, what happens if, say, an envelope packing machine failed to put that notice in a customer's bill? Will that trigger the strict liability offence? These are serious questions, and I would like the minister to respond to them.

Before I sit down to get those answers in relation to this, I think this will show that next to nothing will be forced to be passed on by anybody. We have seen a great huff and puff, a lot of hot air, a lot of legal challenges, a lot of frustration and nuisance, but nobody in the end will be any better off in terms of anything passed on.

As the amendment that is before us is on an emissions trading scheme, I want to finish by saying that the Palmer United Party said it supports an emissions trading scheme. The Greens have compromised by saying: 'Right, we have an emissions trading scheme. The Palmer United Party don't like the fact that it is a fixed price of $25. We will compromise and move flexible pricing immediately, which would bring the price down to $7 or $9.' I do not like doing that, because the whole point here is to keep the price high to drive the transformation but, nevertheless, we are prepared to do it.

This is a test for the Palmer United Party. They say they support emissions trading. Mr Palmer stood up with Al Gore, the former Vice President of the United States, and said he supported an emissions trading scheme. But then the conditions started to roll in. Initially, it was when our major trading partners had one. There was some discussion about whether that meant national or subnational, and then this week it was blown out of the water by the added issue of: now it is India that has to be in this position. Everybody knows that, if you are going to say it is to be all trading partners, all national schemes, including India, this is a mirage that keeps moving further and further away as you get nearer to it.

What happened in this place was only a mirage to give cover to the fact that Mr Palmer and his Palmer United Party are Liberals to the core. They want to govern for the big end of town, and the charade we are going through here with the PUP amendments that the government has incorporated—albeit with some help fixing them up from the government's legal team—has left this country with a mess on its hands. Ultimately, self-interest has outed here: Mineralogy and Queensland Nickel are going to benefit by multibillions of dollars over time by this abolition. I want serious answers to serious questions.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is sad to see that the Labor-Greens coalition in Australia is alive and well. This morning we have seen a shiftwork relay and filibuster coordinated across the Labor-Greens theme. This morning we had Senator Cameron put the same question over and over over 15 minutes—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I asked a series of specific and serious questions going to the heart of who has a legal obligation to take the price off carbon. We are asked to vote on this. We deserve an answer.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Milne. You are covering ground that has been covered.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to get to the questions that Senator Milne asked in relation to an amendment, not before the chair, but a Green amendment that is yet to be moved and appropriately dealt with later in the debate.

This morning we had Senator Cameron take 15 minutes to repeat the same question ad nauseam only to rush out of the chamber before I was even able to answer. Then we had Senator Lines asking the same question over and over over 15 minutes and she has now rushed out of the chamber. Now we have got my good friend jack-in-the-box Senator Dastyari in the chamber readying himself to ask the same question over and over in 15 minutes.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, this is the in committee stage. Senator Cameron, Senator Lines and Senator Milne—all the senators on this side of the chamber—have asked specific questions to the minister. He is the one filibustering and refusing to answer the question—he refused to even get up before. We would like answers to these questions. We are in committee. This is serious legislation that needs proper scrutiny, and answers are needed.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we have had all these 15-minutes political speeches, and I have only spoken for one minute and have already had two points of order. It is really quite amusing.

The first point I would make directly in response to the issues raised by Senator Milne: if she was genuinely interested in the issues she raised, she would have read chapter four of the revised explanatory memorandum which was circulated by the authority of my good friend and valued colleague Hon. Greg Hunt and my other very good friend , the Treasurer, Hon. JB Hockey MP. Over 24 pages—all of the answers are here.

Before we had Senator Lines trying to suggest that somehow some discovery was reported for the first time ever in The West Australian without telling anyone that The West Australian was doing nothing other than quoting from the government's explanatory memorandum. Now we have Senator Milne asking questions in relation to things that are covered in some detail in our explanatory memorandum.

To go to the specific issues that she raised, let me be very clear: when it comes to solar panels, for example, they are not impacted by these measures. As defined in 13A(2)(c) of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989, these measures only cover bulk imports of synthetic greenhouse gases. There are no synthetic greenhouse gas manufacturers in Australia. Bulk importers supply all of the synthetic greenhouse gases sold here in Australia, so our measures do not cover importers of fridges, air conditioners or cars which have synthetic greenhouse gases in them, because it is much too complex and costly to cover.

The government has also made it very clear that the interpretation of 'electricity retailer' is limited to electricity retailers and electricity producers selling electricity into a wholesale electricity market to a retailer. This means that small-scale electricity producers, such as families and businesses with solar PV on their rooftops, are not covered. I will just say that again very slowly for Senator Milne: they are not covered. All she needed to do to find that information was to have a good look at the information openly and transparently published by the government in our revised explanatory memorandum.

In terms of the reductions in the cost of electricity as a direct result of scrapping the Labor-Green carbon tax, I refer you to the statements by Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, which stated on 19 June 2014, in relation to electricity prices, that there would be a 7.8 per cent real fall in electricity prices with the removal of the carbon tax. The Queensland Competition Authority, in relation to electricity prices, stated on 30 May this year that there would be an 8.5 per cent fall in typical household electricity bills. The ACT Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission, also in relation to electricity prices, said that there would be an 11.6 per cent fall in the price of electricity without the carbon tax. The New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, in relation to gas prices, stated that gas prices will be up to 9.2 per cent lower without the carbon tax. I could go on and on, but I will not, because all of these arguments have already been made ad nauseam.

However often Labor senators and Greens senators keep repeating the same erroneous assertions, it does not make them true. The bottom line with all of this, as much as we might want to continue to go round and round in circles, is that all of these issues were canvassed in great detail in the lead-up to the last election, in two very comprehensive debates in the Senate. Now we are having another comprehensive debate. It is time that the Senate acted to respect the will of the Australian people as expressed at the last election.

Specifically in relation to the other questions that Senator Milne raised around consumer protection measures, both in the original and the new bills, all of the issues that she is concerned about are adequately covered in proposed section 60G in relation to price monitoring, proposed section 60K in relation to the false or misleading representations prohibition, section 60C in relation to the price exploitation prohibition—in particular, the modified 60C in relation to the carbon tax reduction obligations; the new 60CA in relation to the failure to pass on the cost savings and the penalty provisions in relation to that, the new 60FA in relation to the carbon tax removal substantiation notice and the new 60FD in relation to the carbon tax removal substantiation statements and the new 60FE in relation to statements for customers.

As we have always said, the government was always determined to ensure that the cost reductions that electricity generators and gas generators, in particular, are able to benefit from as a result of the scrapping of the carbon tax should be passed on to consumers and to small businesses by way of lower electricity and gas prices. We had already taken significant steps to ensure that happens. As a result of the positive and constructive interaction between the government and the Palmer United Party, we have been able to improve even further on what was already a very strong set of provisions. The government is very pleased that the Palmer United Party took such a constructive and positive approach. Of course, the Palmer United Party, like the coalition—and like the Labor Party—went to the last election promising to remove the carbon tax. At least the Palmer United Party is true to its word to the Australian people, whereas the Labor Party is not, yet again.

We can have the ongoing relay filibuster going on—I see that Senator Bullock has now arrived in the chamber, and no doubt he is going to join in straight behind Senator Dastyari with another 15-minute filibuster. But, of course, we all know that in the lead-up to the second version of the WA Senate election—the by-election that we should not have been required to have—it was none other than Senator Bullock who went to Western Australia to say that the Labor Party was scrapping the carbon tax. Sadly for him, that was on the very same day that the Labor Party was voting in this chamber to keep it. I understand why Senator Bullock would have been confused, because he would have been of the view that that was the position of the Labor Party. I see him nod. I am sorry that the Hansard does not pick up a nod, but I saw you nod that that was your belief—that the Labor Party had a policy to scrap the carbon tax. This is the flyer that was circulated in the 2013 election—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please do not use visual aids.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had one that was authorised by then Senator Louise Pratt that says: 'Carbon tax abolished. Kevin Rudd and Labor have removed the carbon tax, saving the average family $380.' That is what you went to the last election telling the Australian people. It does not say anything in here about an emissions trading scheme. It does not say anything in here about the fine print that you suggest to people, somehow, was hidden somewhere else. You went to the Australian people with flyers and materials telling them that you had removed the carbon tax. Now you are still playing games and still running a filibuster in order to try and keep it for as long as possible. The carbon tax is still here. It went up again on 1 July because the Labor Party is standing in the way of the government doing the right thing by the Australian people, and that is to get rid of a tax that is not in their interest.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have questions for Minister Cormann, but I would like answers to the questions. I would like him to not have such a flippant approach to this debate, because the bills that are before us this week are different from the bills that were before us last week.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the exact same amendment.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment was not put. The third amendment was not put by PUP.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please allow Senator Singh to continue her argument, thanks, Minister.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask questions to Senator Cormann specifically based on the fact that this is the in-committee stage. All the senators who have contributed to this in-committee stage this morning have asked questions, and yet Senator Cormann filibusters himself, as a minister, by standing up and saying that the contributions that have been made, the questions that have been asked, by senators on this side are filibustering. They are not filibustering, and they are not erroneous assertions.

I do take to task Senator Cormann's remarks in that regard. They show that he is certainly not serious when it comes to this in-committee stage of scrutinising what is before us in this chamber. He has umpteen advisers sitting there, so he has all the support he needs to get the answers to questions from Senator Cameron, Senator Lines, Senator Milne and me—and there will be more senators, I am sure, who have specific questions. He has support from those advisers to provide answers to this Senate.

But if Minister Cormann is not up to the task of answering these detailed questions, then maybe he should pass it on to Senator Birmingham, who, I know, does have knowledge in this field of environmental policy. In fact, I think I would be right in saying that Senator Birmingham supports an emissions trading scheme, as I know a number of Liberal senators do—in fact, I think it was a unity ticket, once upon a time.

My question to the minister, Senator Cormann, specifically goes to the price pay-through mechanism. That is something I asked Senator Abetz about on Monday in question time. I would like to know if a regulatory impact statement has been undertaken—and of course I am going to the fact that the PUP third amendment is now part of the government's bill. How many entities will be subject to this regime? Senator Abetz answered by saying that he anticipated that there was no such RIS done. He also answered by saying that there were about 60 entities. So could I have clarity on the number of entities and also the list of those entities, so that we make it very clear that we are talking about electricity and gas suppliers when we are talking about the entities component of this bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order, Senator Singh. Sorry to interrupt you, but can I just remind you and, with respect, all senators that we are dealing with opposition amendments on sheet 7527, of schedule 1, specifically related to emissions trading. So could you confine your questions, and could the minister confine his answers, to that area. Could we just confine the discussion to schedule 1 and the opposition's amendments on sheet 7527.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Again, the specific questions that were asked are directly answered in the explanatory memorandum. I refer specifically, in response to the question that was just asked, to page 89 of the explanatory memorandum that was tabled in the House of Representatives, which answers that question directly.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister; wonderful. Senator Singh has, no doubt, the opportunity to avail herself of that. I will go back to you, Senator Singh, but I do ask all colleagues to confine their discussions to the opposition's amendments on sheet 7527, and amendment (3) on emissions trading.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do note that Senator Ludlam earlier did seek a ruling from the chair—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

in relation to the specifics of asking questions while we are debating this amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Certainly, and, if I may interrupt you, I will just mention to everyone that we do have a long list of amendments, and it would be good to see us return to a little bit more discipline and order on your amendments. So, Senator Singh, could you continue on that.

Thank you, Chair, but I would just like to clarify that it is not a long list of amendments; there are about six amendments on the list.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I stand corrected.

Minister, in light of the government not supporting the opposition's amendment for an emissions trading scheme—an amendment that has the full support of economists and scientists in Australia, including former Liberal leader Dr John Hewson—I will ask: in your support for the bill as it currently stands, not including an emissions trading scheme, how far have you consulted with business communities in relation to this bill? Also, firstly, did you consult when you gave your full support on the first amendment? Did you consult when you gave your full support on the second amendment? And did you consult before you gave your full support on the third amendment? We know from Minister Hunt that you gave your full support, and then, of course, spent the weekend trying to tidy it up. So how extensively did you consult before you accepted the PUP amendments and afterwards?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, in relation to the start of the questions, and in relation to the number of entities covered and the like, page 99 of the revised explanatory memorandum tabled in relation to the bill does provide all of the information that Senator Singh is looking for. We, of course, did all of the consultation that is appropriate in the circumstances, particularly bearing in mind that the most relevant and the most important consultation took place on 7 September last year—it was called a general election. At the general election, the proposition that we put to the Australian people was that we would scrap the carbon tax, to bring down the cost of electricity, to bring down the cost of gas, to bring down the cost of living and to bring down the cost of doing business. What we always said, very clearly, in the lead-up to that election was that we would take the necessary steps to ensure that the removal of the carbon tax would result in the appropriate pass-through of any cost reductions as a result of scrapping the carbon tax, to business and to consumers. We have already made a series of strong provisions in the bills that we put to the parliament to ensure that that happens. And, as part of the democratic process in this chamber, we took on board some sensible, constructive, positive suggestions by senators from the Palmer United Party. That is the way the Senate is supposed to work. Just because the Labor Party and the Greens like to make themselves irrelevant by putting themselves on the sidelines, because they want to continue to persist in acting in defiance of the express will of the Australian people, that does not mean that we should not be engaging in constructive discussions and conversations on ways to make good legislation even better, and that is what we have done. That is what is before the Senate, and that is what the Senate should vote on as soon as possible.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will follow up on that. So, Minister, you are saying that in the explanatory memorandum it lists all the businesses you have consulted, because that is what you have just said.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what I said.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question was: who did you consult before you accepted the PUP amendment and afterwards? Your answer referred me to the EM.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true. Senator Singh is misleading the chamber. I referred you to the EM in relation to your question about how many businesses will be impacted by the changes that we are proposing. That answer is very explicitly provided in the explanatory memorandum. Indeed, Senator Lines from the Australian Labor Party suggested this morning that it was actually reported in The West Australian this morning—so transparent have we been in providing that information as part of our explanatory memorandum.

In relation to your question on consultation, what I said to you is that we have undertaken all of the appropriate consultation, bearing in mind that the most important consultation in relation to the measures in this bill took place in the lead-up to 7 September last year. It was called a general election. What we put to the Australian people in the lead-up to the last election was that we would get rid of the carbon tax, because that will help to bring down the cost of electricity, it will help to bring down the cost of gas, it will help to bring down the cost of living—

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My question was specifically: who has the government consulted before the PUP amendment was put and who has the government consulted after they accepted it? I have not had an answer to that question.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order, Senator Singh.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, we went to the last election with a very clear proposition that we would scrap the carbon tax, because it would help families and business. It would help bring down the cost of electricity, it would help bring down the cost of gas, it would help bring down the cost of living, it would help bring down the cost of doing business and it would help create more jobs. What we also said in the lead-up to the last election is that we would do what is necessary to ensure that any cost reductions as a result of scrapping the carbon tax, when it comes to generating energy, would be appropriately passed through to families, to pensioners, to business—users of electricity.

The implication of Senator Singh's question is that Labor does not want us to take the necessary steps to ensure that the savings from scrapping the carbon tax are passed on to families, to pensioners and to business. On this side of the chamber we are very clear that we do want those savings to be passed through. Labor is suggesting, and now the Greens are suggesting, that households and businesses should not be able to benefit from the savings that come with scrapping the Labor-Green tax.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the minister's last answer: the point that we are trying to get from the minister is that all of this promise that there is a legal obligation for these companies to actually take the price off carbon is not there. What you are doing is telling another lie to the Australian people, as a government, in relation to this. I did ask earlier for the minister to show me in the legislation—not in the explanatory memorandum, not in what Minister Hunt has said—where it demonstrates that there is a legal obligation for airlines, supermarkets, landfill operators, clothing salespeople and people who are supplying rental properties to take the price off carbon. I want to know about it in the bill. Where is the legal obligation? And then point to me how they will be fined if they do not remove the tax impost. Which provisions apply? My reading of the legislation is that there is absolutely no legal obligation for airlines, supermarkets, landfill operators, clothing operators and people providing rental properties to take the price off carbon. Where in the bill, please, Minister. You have said that what Minister Hunt says is correct. He said they could all be fined if they do not remove the carbon tax impost. That is not my reading of it, so I want to know. You have also just said that people with solar panels will not be impacted, and I am going to take that up when we get to my amendment in terms of the bill. But I ask specifically: show me the provision in the legislation that covers airlines, supermarkets and landfill operators. I believe they have no legal obligation. You show me where it clearly points out they have a legal obligation to take any price off carbon and that they will be fined or served with a penalty if they do not.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have, of course, answered this question before, and I again refer Senator Milne to, in particular, section 60K in relation to false or misleading representations prohibition. There are also a whole range of other provisions that are highly relevant in relation to this: the modified section 60C, the new section 60CA, the new section 60FA, the new section 60FD and the new section 60FE all together do exactly what Minister Hunt has said. Senator Milne's reading of the legislation is wrong. Minister Hunt's assertions in relation to the effect of the legislation are right.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the minister to section 60K. It talks about false or misleading representations about the effect of the carbon tax repeal on prices. The other provisions you talk about are infringements. What you are doing here is a complete misleading of this Senate, because the only thing that these companies can actually be held to account for is if they make false or misleading representations about the effect of the carbon repeal. There is no legal obligation for any of those companies to take any price of carbon impost off. Show me some other part of this legislation, because it does not exist. All it is saying is: if any company makes a false or misleading statement about the effect of the repeal of the carbon price, that would be captured by the ACCC provisions and the penalties. That is not my point.

You have just said it in here yourself. I can tell you that you will have set the cats and dogs running out there, because you have now said that airlines, supermarkets, landfill operators, people who sell clothing and people who supply rental properties do have a legal obligation to take the price off carbon and that if they do not they will be subject to penalties. That is what you have told this Senate and it is wrong. It is not in the bill. So all this talk about how the community is going to benefit and that you are going to force all these people to do things is a load of nonsense—it is not here.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, we can around and around in circles.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am asking the questions.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. If there is one thing that the Greens and the coalition will not ever reach agreement on, it is our proposition to scrap the carbon tax, because you are fighting very hard to keep something alive that we want to remove from the Australian statute books. We want to remove it because it is bad for Australia, it is bad for Australian families and it is bad for the Australian economy.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't understand your own legislation.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We want to remove it, you want to keep it. That is your right, but there is a process underway where, ultimately, this issue has to be resolved. I don't accept your verballing of my responses to the Senate and I would not want anyone to accept the Greens' interpretation of what I am saying as gospel. I have referred you very clearly to the relevant sections in the legislation that deal with the issues that you have asked about. Minister Hunt, as the responsible minister, has provided very accurate and detailed responses to all of these questions. Of course we have canvassed these issues for some time now. They have been well and truly ventilated. This debate could go on for another five weeks. I suspect there will never be a point of agreement between you, Senator Milne, and myself when it comes to the proposition that we should get rid of the carbon tax.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are absolutely right: we will never agree on abandoning the carbon price, but that is not what we are doing here. We are actually trying to understand this legislation that you have now agreed with Mr Palmer. You agreed with Mr Palmer last week that you were going to legislate exactly the amendment he had. It was changed over the weekend. We have not canvassed this before because we did not have it in front of us before. It has never been debated in here, and you are now humiliated, Minister, because you do not know your own legislation. You have no idea who it covers. You have no idea who the penalties apply to. But I can tell you one thing: the Palmer United Party have been conned because none of these things will actually apply across the board, as you are suggesting.

I want to ask another specific one—and just a yes or no will suffice—and I go back to this Canberra company, Frozpak. Minister Hunt said, with the Prime Minister there, that the refrigerant gas costs to that company would triple and that the effect of the carbon price was a $60,000 a year impost. That is what the minister and the Prime Minister said when they went to visit this company. Does that company have a legal obligation now to remove the tax impost and where will I be able to go to see that they have removed $60,000 worth of impost to their customers? As I read the bill, they will not have to do that at all.

The only people captured in synthetic gases in this are the importers, not who they sell it to. So the importer will be able to say, 'Yes, I imported the gas at X price.' But this company, Frozpak, will not have to say anything at all that will land them in trouble unless they make a false and misleading statement. If they stay mum, nothing will happen. They don't have to substantiate the claim of $60,000 that they busily got themselves and the Prime Minister into the media with—they can say nothing. Minister, is Frozpak captured by this legislation? Does that company have a legal obligation to take the price off carbon and exclude that from making false and misleading statements? Do or don't they?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's give Sam a go.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a handful of questions, not too many, in the area of consumer protection and consumer information. Mr Temporary Chairman, would it be more appropriate to ask them one at a time or bundle them together?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is purely a matter for you, Senator Dastyari.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure it will take you 15 minutes anyway.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I suspect it won't, though it depends on whether you actually answer them, Minister. With the legislation as it has now been drafted there is a requirement for power and energy producers to pass on cost savings at fear of penalty if they don't do so for the component that is related to the carbon. I appreciate what you said earlier that if someone is falsely claiming that such and such pricing is happening because of a carbon component and that is not the case then obviously there is an opportunity to prosecute them. I also note comments made earlier about natural competitive tensions. Minister, what pressures are there otherwise for the non-energy producing consumers—your grocery or clothes stores or whatever other business—to actually pass on the costs? What legislative requirements exist for anyone else to do it, aside from the energy producers and the big power companies?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Senator Dastyari says 'other than competition', he dismisses an important driver of making sure that businesses across Australia charge the lowest possible price for the best possible product. Of course, competitive tensions are what bring out the best possible value for consumers in a free market. Senator Dastyari was not in the chamber when I pointed this out. There have already been statements from all the relevant regulators of electricity prices that electricity prices will go down as a result of scrapping the carbon tax. The Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator stated on 19 June that there would be a real fall in electricity prices of 7.8 per cent with the removal of the carbon tax. The Queensland Competition Authority said that electricity prices would fall by 8.5 per cent in typical household electricity bills as result of the removal of the carbon tax. The ACT Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission said electricity prices would fall by 11.6 per cent without the carbon tax. The New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal said gas prices would fall by up to 9.2 per cent without the carbon tax and so on and so on. AGL, a private energy supplier, in their release on 23 June 2014, said:

… price reductions will flow through to residential and small business customers, if the carbon repeal legislation is passed by the Federal Parliament.

So it goes on. There are statements galore. Clare Savage, Group Executive Manager, Strategy and Corporate Affairs, EnergyAustralia, said:

Once the Federal Government stops collecting the tax from us, we'll then ensure those savings are passed on to our customers. If the Federal Government backdates the repeal to July 1, we will abide by that. That is our guarantee.

And so on. There is absolutely no evidence that the cost savings from scrapping the carbon tax will not be passed on.

Having said that, with an abundance of caution to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards, the government has already put provisions into the legislation—and we have canvassed them in some detail—to ensure compliance with passing on these cost savings, by energy suppliers in particular. As a result of the constructive discussions that we had with the Palmer United Party, we have now gone even further. I confirm again what I said previously to Senator Milne—that the definition of 'electricity retailer' for the purposes of this is limited to electricity retailers and electricity producers selling electricity into wholesale electricity markets to a retailer. That is a very important qualification.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have made this point before and you have made it today. That is why I am trying to take you to a different space, outside of what has already been discussed. Obviously there are clear provisions within the legislation about electricity generators or energy suppliers to be passing on the cost. I want to get clarification. Are you saying there is no legislative requirement within this bill at all that, while the inputs—you are of the view—will go down, that will necessarily be passed on? There is no legislative requirement for anyone to pass it on?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what I have said. In my exchanges with Senator Milne I referred her to the provisions that I will now refer you to. They are proposed sections 60G, 60K, modified 60C, new 60CA, new 60FA, new 60FD and new 60FE, which deal with price monitoring, false or misleading representations prohibition, price exploitation prohibition, carbon tax reduction obligations, failure to pass on cost savings, carbon tax removal substantiation notice, carbon tax removal substantiation statements, and statements for customers. Altogether, those provisions will help ensure that cost savings from the scrapping of the carbon tax are appropriately passed through to energy customers.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have had a look at the provisions that you quote as well. Obviously so have some other people. They relate to if somebody is making largely a false or misleading claim. As I understand it, they are not that dissimilar to a lot of the bits that were put around the GST, for when people make false or misleading claims about the GST. There were always going to be some penalties associated with that. More specifically, my question is really related to outside of anyone making a false or misleading claim—for example, if I am running a business. I am going to use grocery store X for the purpose of this example. If the energy production costs go down, as you believe they will—and you have put a legislative requirement in for them to go down, and I accept that; that is part of the bill—there is no legislative requirement in this legislation that I pass on those costs, is there? Is the argument you have made—it is an argument that other people in your party and the government have made—that competitive tension is enough and there is no need for there to be any requirement for anyone to pass the savings on? You quote parts of the bill that relate to when people make misleading claims. I accept they are there, and they should be there. What worries me is that there is nothing in this bill that ensures that I need to pass on savings that I have received. The worry and the concern that a lot of people have, and that I have, is that part of the reason why a lot of businesses have been so strongly in favour of this is that, of course, they want the input costs reduced, but does that does not necessarily translate into that being passed on? The real concern is that these are going to be absorbed and are going to be paid by consumers. That is the question I want to get your feedback on.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At risk of prolonging the debate, if you want me to put me an answer to that question on the record, I will just read out the explanatory memorandum that was tabled by the government. The questions you have asked are explicitly answered in great detail, in a directly relevant manner, in the explanatory memorandum. If you want me to read them out, I will start. In chapter 4, on page 51, it says:

Schedule 2 to the Main Repeal Bill amends the CC Act—

The Competition and Consumer Act—

to prohibit carbon tax-related price exploitation, to ensure that all cost savings attributable to the carbon tax repeal are passed through the supply chain for regulated goods, and to ensure that lower prices resulting from the repeal of the carbon tax are passed on to consumers of regulated goods.

It then goes through:

Schedule 2 to the Main Repeal Bill also amends the CC Act to:

• prohibit false or misleading representations about the effect of the carbon tax repeal;

• require the ACCC to provide retailers of electricity and natural gas, and entities that are importers of bulk synthetic greenhouse with a carbon tax removal substantiation notice;

• require retailers of electricity and natural gas, and entities that are importers of bulk synthetic greenhouse gases, to provide the ACCC with a carbon tax removal substantiation statement;

• require entities that are retailers of electricity and natural gas to provide their customers with a statement that explains how carbon tax removal savings will be passed on to them;

• provide the ACCC with additional price monitoring powers in relation to the carbon tax repeal;

• provide for stiff penalties to entities that fail to comply with these provisions.

The explanatory memorandum goes on to say:

The removal of the carbon tax is expected to lower input costs for some businesses. In some markets this will flow on in the form of lower consumer prices. However, in selected markets, especially where competition is limited, businesses may think that it is open to them not to pass through savings from the carbon tax repeal.

4.4 The amendments contained in Schedule 2 to the Main Repeal Bill will ensure that consumers and businesses are not exploited by suppliers following the repeal of the carbon tax by prohibiting price exploitation with respect to certain key goods (such as electricity and gas) and false or misleading representations about the effects of the carbon tax repeal on prices. Price exploitation will occur whenever an affected entity does not pass through all of its cost savings that are directly or indirectly attributable to the carbon tax repeal. These amendments are based on those made when the GST was first introduced, but impose greater levels of consumer protection and stiffer penalties on entities that do not comply with their cost saving pass through obligation.

I could go on but I won't because, unlike the Labor Party and the Greens, I am not involved in this shiftwork relay filibuster. I just want to point out to the Senate and to those listening and to you, Senator Dastyari, that you are being entirely unreasonable. You are participating in a filibuster. All of the questions you are raising are answered in the explanatory memorandum. Do you want me to read out the 24 pages of the explanatory memorandum?

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has different views from mine on consumer protection, and that is fine. But I take offence at the idea that we should not be asking questions about consumer protections and how far they extend—specific questions I have been asking that are not covered by the explanatory memorandum. I thank the minister for reading his answer into Hansard. It was an effective justification of the point we have been making—which is that there are not protections in this legislation beyond certain key industries that have been identified and there is a real and legitimate concern that, outside of a few sectors, savings are not going to be passed on.

The minister also made reference to some changes to the ACCC. I want to get my understanding of this correct. Have provisions been made for the process that is going to be put in place for people to be able to make complaints to the ACCC more easily, if this legislation is passed, about businesses not passing on the savings and about false and misleading claims? I accept that there is only a legislative requirement for certain businesses to have to pass it on; with the others, we are going to try and let the market fix it for us. But the minister talked about how incredibly improper it is for businesses to make false and misleading claims about the impact of climate change and the price of carbon. There are people making claims in a false and misleading way that prices are going to be reduced or costs absorbed. Does that only apply to businesses, minister, not individuals or people making claims outside of that? Yesterday the Senate sat until quite late, but I managed to make the time to go to Coles in Manuka, which is well known to a lot of us. I went there to buy a leg of lamb. Even though it is the holy month of Ramadan I still thought I would eat a bit of ham. It was not $100 though; it cost about $26. Minister, you are saying this is limited to those who make false or misleading claims. If a politician or a public servant makes false claims about the price of carbon, is that okay?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Dastyari for his cute political point. He served as the state secretary of the Labor Party in New South Wales, so I am sure he knows very well that the ultimate judge and jury in relation to the accuracy, relevance and appropriateness of statements made by members of parliament is the Australian people. The Australian people made a judgement on 7 September. And guess what? You lost, and people voted against your carbon tax.

Senator Dastyari would be well aware that the ACCC has power over corporations, not individuals. That is not a new development; it has always been the us. So I am not sure whether that was supposed to be a trick question or he is suggesting to the Senate that he has made some unbelievable discovery that no-one has ever heard of before. Just to be very clear: the ACCC has always been an organisation that has powers in relation to the conduct of corporations rather than the conduct of individuals.

I also reject some of the other assertions—that there is no power for the government to do anything in relation to price exploitation by anyone other than energy suppliers. Senator Dastyari clearly has not read the explanatory memorandum—and Senator Milne, Senator Singh and Senator Lines clearly have not read it. You are just coming in here with prepared talking points and questions that have been provided by Mr Shorten's office. There is a capacity in the bill—it is very transparent and there for all to see—to extend section 60(1) to other sectors if problems were to emerge. We do not believe there is any evidence that there would be problems emerging. But this capacity—along with the competitive pressures in the marketplace that I have already mentioned before—is a clear incentive for businesses across Australia to do the right thing and reduce prices. The ACCC and the government will of course continue to monitor what all businesses do.

We have got to remind the chamber that it is Labor's carbon tax that pushed up the cost of electricity, it is Labor's carbon tax that pushed up the price of gas, it is Labor's carbon tax that pushed up the cost of living, it is Labor's carbon tax that pushed up the cost of doing business in Australia. We have already had statements from all of the relevant price regulators when it comes to electricity and a whole series of private sector energy suppliers that they will pass on the savings that come from scrapping the carbon tax. We are very confident that on the Treasury modelling, which was based on the same methodology as the modelling done when Labor claimed a $380 saving from modifying the carbon tax, we will be able to deliver a $550-a-year saving from scrapping it.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, you are misleading the Senate in what you are saying. You said earlier here today that Minister Hunt was right when he said that the airlines, the supermarkets, the landfill operators could be fined if they did not remove the carbon tax impost. That is not in the legislation. It is not in the explanatory memorandum. The scope of any substantiation notices applies to an electricity retailer that sells electricity to electricity customers; a natural gas retailer that sells natural gas to natural gas customers; and a bulk SCG importer that sells synthetic greenhouse gas to SCG customers. That is it. So you have told the Senate one thing that is completely wrong. You do not even understand your own legislation, yet you are out there saying things. You could have said that Minister Hunt got it wrong last week, but you did not. You said he got it right. But it is not in the legislation. What is more, you just stood up in answer to Senator Dastyari, trying to imply that monitoring covers some sort of legal requirement to remove the carbon price. It does not. The ACCC simply has the power to monitor changes in goods, monitor changes in this, monitor changes in that and if someone has unreasonably exploited—and that is why I asked earlier what 'unreasonably exploited' meant—is that okay? You cannot explain that.

I want to take you back to the issue of solar panels. You referred me to the explanatory memorandum. You must have read that. Let me tell you: the word 'wholesaler' does not appear in the bill anywhere. The only place you will find it is in the minister's second reading speech. Do you know why? Because he is desperately cobbling together some sort of explanation in the hope that it might guide the courts, if this matter were to be taken to the courts, in saying that it does not actually apply to people with solar panels. But let me take you through box and dice, Minister, as to why, as the legislation currently stands, it does apply to someone with solar panels on their roof.

The scope for providing a substantiation notice is: an electricity retailer that sells electricity; a natural gas retailer; and a bulk SCG synthetic greenhouse gas importer. So who, by definition, is an 'electricity retailer' in the bill? It is:

(f) any other entity who produces electricity in Australia.

An 'electricity customer' means an entity that purchases electricity. So if you produce electricity and sell it to someone who purchases electricity, then you are captured by this substantiation notice. That is why the Greens have a very sensible amendment to remove it.

In your rushing about to try to accommodate the Palmer United Party, you got yourselves into a mess and you cannot explain any of it today. And, as I said before, you know full well that this will fall over in the courts and, when it does, you do not care. You do not want all this difficulty out there about substantiation notices. You do not want people to have to explain anything. When you went around Australia and said, 'Frozpak in Canberra is going to incur $60,000 worth of carbon cost impost in one year,' you knew, as well as I did, that it was not true at the time it was said. This whole thing has been designed to ensure that people never have to substantiate it.

All that has to happen is that someone has to make false or misleading statements, which is pretty customary under various other acts for business et cetera. But the point here is that you have conned a group of people into thinking you are going to require all of these so-called cost savings to be passed on and the only people who will be required by law to do it are, as I said, those within the scope of the act: electricity retailers, natural gas retailers and bulk importers of synthetic greenhouse gases. All the rest is just hot air, reports and, supposedly, monitoring and somebody is going to make a judgement about whether or not there is real substantiation.

I ask the minister, since he is so familiar with the legislation and the explanatory memorandum, to point to me where in the bill it says that an electricity retailer will not be captured, because it applies to people selling to a wholesaler.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot of this debate has been consumed by the notion that, by simply removing the carbon price, it will cut power prices. It is a simple proposition—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

No, I am going to get to a question in a moment, so if you would just hold on. The proposition is that if you impose a tax, prices go up, and then if you remove that then prices go down. But taxes, particularly the carbon price mechanism, are designed to change that behaviour. We have seen there have been fewer emissions in the electricity sector as a result of carbon pricing, which has been a positive behaviour change. I want to ask the minister about the negative impacts of this government's rhetoric on carbon pricing. How has this government in fact created incentives for various bodies to maximise their benefits, while the carbon price remains in existence?

In this instance, I am specifically talking about Hydro Tasmania and the potential negative impact for Tasmanian consumers from both the constant negative rhetoric from the government about the carbon price and its upcoming repeal. On The Conversation website, it was reported by Professor Mike Sandiford, Professor of Geology and Director of Melbourne Energy Institute at the University of Melbourne, that Hydro Tasmania have sought to produce significantly more amounts of electricity while the carbon price has been in place than they would have, given the levels in their dams.

Of course, Hydro Tasmania produces hydroelectric power. It is wholly reliant on rainfall and that rainfall gets collected in its dams. So while there has been a course of strong dividends for the Tasmanian government, as the shareholder of Hydro Tasmania, it may be that these were in fact short-term profits from shorting the carbon price. So the carbon price's imminent repeal has provided an incentive for the hydro to drain its dams to realise the windfall gains wherever it could.

Mr Abbott's promise that, through repealing the carbon tax, household costs will fall $550 per year on average may, if rainfall in Tasmania declines below average over the coming years, turn out to be the inverse with increases in wholesale electricity prices in Tasmania. Because Tasmania will be importing large amounts of power from Victoria and the national electricity market at a premium, I want to know if the minister, the Tasmanian Liberal MPs in the other place and the Tasmanian Liberal senators have considered this issue.

It has also been reported that Tasmanian hydro generators have been selling electricity into the mainland market at unprecedented rates, drawing down storage levels dramatically since the carbon price was implemented in July 2012. Levels in the Gordon dam, which has almost one-third the total storage capacity, are down to nearly 20 per cent—levels not seen since the millennium drought despite significantly above average catchment rainfalls over the last year. In the last years of the millennium drought up to late 2009, hydro supply in Tasmania was so limited that it could not supply Tasmanian demand so Basslink flowed mainly south with the export and import of mostly Latrobe Valley supplied electricity. Reservoir levels were then at less than 30 per cent capacity. So according to the AEMO in 2008-09, when the Basslink flow was 90 per cent southward, Tasmanian wholesale prices were around 25 per cent higher than in Victoria.

The situation changed with the start of carbon pricing, with storage averaging above 50 per cent from three good years of rain and from a doubling of Victorian prices to almost $60 per megawatt hour. Hydro power was sent northwards across Bass Strait at unprecedented rates. Then according to AMEO in 2012-13, the flow direction was a reverse of the four years previous with 90 per cent of flow northwards. The impact of this increase in supply was that the July storage levels have fallen to around 25 per cent. So without the carbon price, it was reported that Victorian prices will drop to around $30 per megawatt hour and that will see no price signal, no net export, no benefit for Tasmania. The concern I have is that the draw-down of storage has risked future supply in the event of a return to below-average rainfall conditions. If reserves prove insufficient and Tasmania again needs to import, Tasmanian wholesale prices could soar to at least 25 per cent of Victoria's.

Before posing my final question to the minister, I want to remind the chamber that the coalition government has sought to frame this debate about the utility bills paid by households and business. We heard the minister talk about the figure of $550 a moment ago. So in seeking to repeal the carbon price, the main purpose seems to be the miraculous reduction in utility bills and in overall costs on households and businesses. Never mind that the rise in electricity has overwhelmingly been the fault of infrastructure upgrades to distribution networks. And never mind that there are different prices and usages in every state.

The Prime Minister was unambiguous in stating the reductions that Australia could expect if these repeals bills passed.

The first impact of this Bill will be on households whose overall costs will fall by about $550 a year on average.

The minister talked about that a moment ago.

Because of this Bill, household electricity bills will be around $200 lower next financial year without the carbon tax.

They were some nice weasel words by the Prime Minister in the use of the term 'next financial year'. He reflects that Labor's emissions trading scheme will have reduced power prices significantly. But to state that 'household costs will fall $550 per year on average' when power is obviously only going to increase in the first year is completely naive and dishonest. The new evidence raised on the Conversation website by Professor Sandiford shows that repealing the carbon price and the uncertainty for the past four years may actually see power prices rise considerably in Tasmania. Minister, can you guarantee that the average Tasmanian household costs will drop by $550 each year and every year after as guaranteed by the Prime Minister?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we see here today in the Australian Senate is that the Labor-Green coalition that is desperately trying to hold on to its bad carbon tax is alive and well. What we have got here today is a Labor-Green shift work tag team relay filibuster. The question that Senator Urquhart asked, as she would be very well aware, was the exact same question asked during the same stage of the debate this time last week. I provided a very direct answer in relation to the matters she raised on hydro. I am going to continue to support the Labor-Green tag team shift work relay filibuster because it is in the national interest for the Senate to pass these bills as soon as possible.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister again—I did ask before but I did not get an answer—what is envisioned in section 60C of 'indirect cost saving attributable to the carbon price'? I asked before why did people in their substantiation statements have to go beyond 'direct'. Since 'indirect' is not defined, and if people do not put in their substantiation statements they can face a fine to $68,000-$85,000, can the minister please inform the Senate why it is not defined in the legislation what an 'indirect' cost is? And what do the people who are subject to this legislation—let us be real here, we are only talking about electricity retailers, natural gas retailers and bulk synthetic greenhouse gas importers—have to understand by the notion of 'indirect'? What does that actually mean for them?

I did ask the minister before, and this goes to his claim that everybody is going to be subject to legal action, what is meant by for the ACCC to bring on legal action under proposed section 60 the price exploitation must be 'unreasonably high'? Can the minister outline what kind of exploitation must occur for it to be classed as 'unreasonably high' because we are only talking about electricity, gas and synthetic greenhouse gas suppliers. They are going to make a judgement in their substantiation statements about what they have to do. They also know that it will be possible for them to exploit the removal of the carbon price as long as it is not 'unreasonably high'. So I think they need some guidance on two matters. One, what is an indirect cost saving attributable to carbon pricing? Also, please tell me what the threshold is for a definition of 'unreasonably high'.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was trying to let the minister have an opportunity to get out of his seat and answer the question from Senator Milne, and even have another opportunity to answer the question from Senator Urquhart. But he is obviously refusing to answer questions, despite this being the in-committee stage of this legislation. I think that is testament to what our democracy has come to under this government, where they not only run around putting in place various scare campaigns—especially when it comes to clean energy policy—but also operate under a veil of secrecy by not even answering questions on their own bill in the committee stage of the bill.

I do not know what Senator Cormann has to hide or whether he is just ignorant to being able to provide the answers to senators. He has umpteen advisers there. I am sure they can scrawl out something on a sticky note and hand it to him, yet he is refusing to answer questions. I think that is absolutely shameful. It is an absolutely appalling state of democracy when it comes to legislation being debated and ministers will not get up and answer the questions.

I will nonetheless ask questions of the minister in the hope that he will answer them. I will preface them in relation to the amendment, because we are on the opposition amendment in relation to the emissions trading scheme—that is, the replacement of the current bills with an emissions trading scheme. Despite the scare tactics, that is something that Minister Cormann knows that Labor has been on consistent—that is, we support the repeal of the carbon tax if it is replaced by a credible climate change policy. That credible policy is an emissions trading scheme. And that is of course supported by a number of economists and scientists right around the country.

On top of that, we know that that is the way in which the world is moving. Why? It is because it guarantees the lowest cost for Australian businesses and for Australian families. That is what we are talking about at the moment in relation to cost. The cost situation if the government repeals the carbon tax and replaces it with nothing remains very unclear when it comes to the pass-through mechanism. I did ask Senator Cormann about the entities that will be subject to this regime and whether the government had consulted with those entities. I did not get an answer on that; I got a filibustered response to that. Now I refer Minister Cormann to the regulatory impact statement that is in the explanatory memorandum. I take him to page 98, to be specific. It says clearly at the top of that page that, 'it is not possible to say with certainty what proportion of the carbon price may have been passed through or was absorbed in any given sector.' It then goes on to say that 'likely price changes in energy markets are more easily quantified.'

So, if you are saying that you cannot determine what the pass-through will be, how can the government be so certain of this $550 saving to households? I ask the minister to answer the question, not in relation to the Treasury modelling, because we know the Treasury modelling was done before the carbon tax was in place and the Treasury modelling was just that—it was modelling. We have now been living with a price on carbon for a couple of years. We know that the cost has not been as high as $550; yet this government is again going around telling lies, telling furphies and telling the Australian community that there will be a saving of $550.

The reality is something quite different. That is why airlines did not pass on the carbon tax to their customers. That is why supermarkets did not pass on the carbon tax to their customers—they absorbed it. So, Minister, how can you say that there will be a $550 saving from repealing this legislation and go about scaring the Australian community by saying that Whyalla is going to close, the average lamb roast is going to be $100 and all the other furphies that Tony Abbott, yourself and many others in the coalition have gone about espousing all in the name of politics—not based on anything in your regulatory impact statement and not based on anything substantiated in the legislation either. So please tell this Senate—come clean with this Senate—how you can be so certain that there will be a $550 saving.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is—

Mr Chairman, it is absolutely outrageous that Senator Cormann will not answer questions. Is that what it has come down to now? Are we going to continue on in committee debating and discussing these amendments without anyone on the government benches answering questions?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not discussing the amendments.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are discussing questions. We are asking questions of the government and the government is refusing to answer.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have said nothing about your amendments.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did say something about the opposition's amendment—very clearly I did.

The CHAIRMAN: Senators will come to order. Senators should not be interjecting when they are not in their places.

Maybe Senator Birmingham would be better off answering questions as parliamentary secretary because we know he has interests in his portfolio and we know he has knowledge and perhaps a different ideological position when it comes to carbon pricing. We know the government has a number of senators and members who support an emissions trading scheme. They are hanging their heads in shame at the fact that the Prime Minister has let them down the path of not supporting an emissions trading scheme, despite having done so before. We know how many times minister Greg Hunt has been on record saying he supports putting a price on carbon.

The reason Labor has moved an amendment for an emissions trading scheme—I made it very clear before—is that it does deliver business certainty and positions Australia to maximise our economic benefits from the growing global trend of pricing pollution. That growing global trend is very clear. It is something about which the Prime Minister has again told lies and furphies. Recently when he was in Canada he said clearly that the world was not moving towards emissions trading when the world is moving towards emissions trading. We have China's seven pilot emissions trading schemes, which cover a quarter of a billion people in the second largest carbon market in the world, second only to the European Union. We have South Korea's which will start on 1 January 2015. Mexico put a price on carbon in 2013. The European Union has had an ETS for many years and on top of that many European countries have applied their own carbon price—for example, France in 2013. In the United States, Oregon and Washington are exploring carbon pricing options. California, which happens to be the world's eighth largest economy, already has an emissions trading scheme in place, as does New York and as do eight other states in the USA's regional greenhouse gas initiative.

We know that comments recently by President Obama highlighted that this is a major global challenge which is facing our planet and facing the United States. That is why all these countries are acting. Yet there is an amendment on the table but the government refuses to qualify why it will not support it, even though it did in the past. If it is not supported and the current bills are passed through this Senate, we will be left with nothing and we will be going backwards. Senator Cormann may want to deny the science and to deny the scientific facts.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not deny the science; we deny your bad tax.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are denying the economists. This is the Liberal Party denying a market based mechanism to deal with carbon pollution. It is ironic that a Liberal Party is not standing by a carbon pollution scheme. On top of that, it is one thing for you not to support a market based mechanism. That is bizarre enough but on top of that you will not support the Clean Energy Finance Corporation which delivers to taxpayers. It actually makes money for taxpayers. You will not even support that. On top of all of that, you want the country and the opposition to get on board with you direct action policy, which is spending $2.2 billion of taxpayers' money. So you are taking away the ability to have an emissions trading scheme, taking away the ability for the CEFC to make money for taxpayers. Then you want to spend money on a wing and a prayer that you will give money to big polluters and that will lead to some abatement. This is why there is no support for the government's climate change policy, if you can call it that.

There is no support from economists for the government's policy because it does not stack up economically or environmentally. It does not help Australia to meet its reductions targets. Yet we have Senator Cormann saying that starting from the removal of the carbon price families and pensioners are going to be better off. Clearly, families and pensioners are not going to be better off under this government because only a couple of months ago we had introduced the worst budget on record which rips the heart out of families and pensioners. It attacks the livelihoods of families and pensioners. So for you to say in this place that you stand for families and pensioners and somehow link that to carbon policy is simply another lie and another shroud of secrecy under which this government continues to operate when it cannot answer my question in relation to how you can be so certain that $550 will be passed on to families. I take it that it is not true. If it were true, Senator Corman would have got out of his seat and answered the question. Senator Cormann sat there after I asked him to qualify a question about his own regulatory impact statement. He did not get up to answer the question, which shows perfectly what the answer really is—that is, he cannot guarantee a $550 saving. He knows it is just another slogan he has put out there to convince the Australian people and to scare them into this Whyalla closing, the $100 lamb roast scare tactic, so that the Australian people vote for them. It is lies, all lies, and it is all becoming unravelled right here, right now, from your lack of clarity and the fact that you are still sitting in your chair and not answering these questions.

A number of questions have been put by opposition senators this morning. You have failed to answer them. Some of them you did not even get up and answer, just like mine. Some of them you have simply failed to answer; you have just come back with the same old slogans. That is no way for the government to run this chamber. You are in government now. You need to take responsibility for the legislation that you have brought to this place. You have done a deal with the Palmer United Party on this legislation. We want to know the answers to specific questions in relation to the amendments that have now been incorporated into this legislation. They do have an effect on electricity suppliers and gas suppliers and the like, as well as on consumers. We want to know exactly how this is going to work. That is why we have asked these questions.

So, finally, I ask you, Minister Cormann, can you please at least try to stand up and answer my question: how can you say with certainty that there will be a $550 saving, when it clearly says—on page 98 of the explanatory memorandum, in relation to the regulatory impact statement—that it is not possible to say with certainty what proportion of the carbon price may have been passed through or was absorbed in any given sector?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne?

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the minister did not make any attempt to get out of his seat—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because I have already answered the question. I answered the exact same question from Senator Cameron.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Milne has the call.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. I want to ask a very specific question. I want to ask the minister about section 60FE of the legislation and the statement that has to be made for electricity customers. It applies to an electricity retailer that sells electricity to customers or a natural gas retailer that sells natural gas to customers.

Within 30 days after royal assent of this bill, those retailers have to prepare a statement which tells their customers the cost savings that have been 'directly or indirectly attributable' to the carbon tax repeal and for the financial year that began on 1 July 2014. In that period, they have to communicate this to their customers. It says specifically that it has to be communicated to each customer of that class and, if they do not comply, they will be subject to a $400 penalty unit offence, and it is a strict liability situation.

On that basis, Minister, I want to ask you again: if this happened to go through today and get royal assent soon, these electricity retailers and natural gas retailers are going to have to be preparing their statements. What does an 'indirect cost saving attributable to the carbon price' mean for the purposes of complying with the legislation?

Secondly: since they have to inform their customers of the expected cost saving, do they have to inform all of their customers through some direct means, or is putting something on their website sufficient to fulfil the requirement of section 60FE?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Lines?

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give Senator Cormann an option if he is actually going to—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Jump in the box, just like Senator Dastyari.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have not actually been answering any questions, so we will just give you some more. I have heard Senator Milne ask that same question quite a few times this morning—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I have answered it several times.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have not answered it.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be a good idea if you answered it at some point, Senator Cormann.

I want to talk about what is happening on Aboriginal land. Although I am yet to see it, I do note our Prime Minister's absolute spoken commitment to Aboriginal people across this country. I think he said he wants to be the Prime Minister who makes a difference to Aboriginal people's lives. But the only difference he is making at the moment is attacking Aboriginal community organisations and Aboriginal people through his harsh and cruel budget measures in the same way he is attacking the rest of the population. Anyway, we will have a go.

There is a public consultation period at the moment on carbon abatement. Four Aboriginal organisations in my home state of Western Australia have put submissions in: Aboriginal Carbon Fund, Indigenous Land Corporation, Kimberley Land Council and Latitude Forest Services. They ask some really important questions. It is not just a matter of those corporations putting submissions in for any of the Direct Action funding which might be available. It is really about how any policy of government really acknowledges and respects that very strong commitment and cultural attachment to the land that Aboriginal people have right across this country. If that first principle of that strong connection to country is missing, then I am not quite sure how Direct Action or any kind of carbon abatement scheme could benefit Aboriginal communities; because currently there is a range of projects in those communities which are not only creating work but are continuing that strong connection to land.

The submission raises some very serious concerns in relation to what might happen. They say that the contract and crediting positions do not provide the certainty for higher costs and longer term land sector projects to participate in the ERF and the voluntary market. I would certainly be interested in hearing the government's response to that. As I said, if it is against the backdrop of working with Aboriginal communities—of building capacity, of respecting that strong attachment to land and that cultural connectedness—I would be very interested to hear the response to that question.

The submission goes on to say:

The White Paper indicates that projects can only win one purchase contract for (preferably) 5 years. The stated reason is

to encourage new projects.

It is so typical of this government not to respect the work that is already going and to come in with this new brush to think they know best. That kind of patronising attitude has gone on for far too long in Aboriginal communities. The government needs to work with communities, not on top of them or riding roughshod on what is already happening.

They state the concern that there is a preference for new contracts; however, they say that remote land sector projects with high start-up costs need a longer planning window. We know this already in Aboriginal communities, particularly in very remote areas such as in Western Australia. They need longer periods to be successful and they can be successful, if they have an idea that is supported and grows from the community and where good governance structures are in place.

They have a range of savanna projects and, conversely, if those projects stop, Australia' emissions will rise. They believe that five years is too restrictive to catalyse these kinds of projects. Again, this one-size-fits-all kind of response will not work if the government is genuinely committed to protecting our environment and to the science of climate change—and we have heard the Prime Minister's view on that over and over. If it is genuinely committed, these projects need a longer window and there needs to be difference, and so we need to have guidelines that support that kind of difference, different start-up costs and so on.

Another question I have for the minister is: how will Direct Action address and protect the work of Indigenous communities such as savanna and landcare projects? The submission from the four organisations—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chairman, on a point of order: I know that we have got a wide-ranging debate about legislation and the debate at various times has strayed beyond the amendment before the chair. Not only do the issues that Senator Lines is now raising not relate to the amendment; they do not relate to the legislation before the chamber. She is asking questions about legislation that is due to come before the chamber down the track. I know that the Labor-Greens tag team filibuster is alive and well but, even by Labor's standards, this is taking it to another level.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I remind Senator Lines to come back to the matter for discussion.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has been so reluctant this morning—at one point he accused, I think, Senator Cameron of not asking genuine questions. I am not quite sure how one makes up a question. I am not sure which question Senator Cormann will answer, because he steadfastly refused to answer Senator Milne's questions. He did not answer the questions I put before, but let's us have a go; I will go back to the question that I asked him earlier today.

There are reports out this morning that ask, because of the government and Palmer United Party last-minute amendments done outside the chamber in the dead of night, what the regulatory burdens are that they are going to impose on small business in Australia. I asked that question this morning. It has not been answered. I saw filibustering and so on from the minister. He did anything but answer that question, and I put it directly to him. There is a new cost that has been imposed on businesses in the last 48 hours that they have not been consulted on. It is in the explanatory memorandum, and I have asked the government a question directly about that.

I also asked the government—and, with respect, I think Senator Cormann almost answered this question about an emissions trading scheme and gave examples of where in the past the government and indeed our now Prime Minister have supported an ETS—why he won't support Labor's amendments now. The response I got was: time has moved on. Yes, it has and there is much more science around now as to why we should support an emissions trading scheme and why an emissions trading scheme is the way forward.

The government is proposing, if it seriously will not consider Labor's amendments and the bills go through, a period where we will have absolutely nothing in place for big polluters in this country. The government and certainly Senator Cormann have not addressed that question.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chairman, on a point of order: we are now less than two minutes away from going to matters of public importance. The Labor-Greens filibuster has now been going for more than three hours and 15 minutes. Is this really going to continue?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Cormann, that is not a point of order. Please take your seat. I call Senator Lines.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put questions forward this morning. Minister Cormann seems to be only answering questions from his own side. This morning he took as genuine a question from Senator Macdonald about which union had coverage on a particular worksite. What that had to do with Labor's ETS amendments is beyond my comprehension; I have no idea. It is not as if the Abbott government is any friend of trade unions; it certainly is not. I think Senator Cormann then invited some of the Labor senators present—or someone did—to answer that question for him.

Going back to Labor's ETS, I have asked very genuine questions. We are going to see, if these bills are passed, a period in Australia where we have nothing in place. That makes Australia an outlier country—a country that has been so progressive in terms of the sorts of legislation that we have put in place in the past, not just by Labor. Labor has led the way on progressive legislation, but conservative governments have on occasions risen and put in place good legislation. So we are going to be at least 12 months, who knows, without anything in place. If Labor's amendment is not accepted here today, we are delivering an absolute opportunity for the big polluters in our country just—

Debate interrupted.