Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter today from Senator McLucas in regard to statements I made last week. I am happy to clarify my comments for Senator McLucas. In her letter, Senator McLucas quoted me saying in the Senate last week, 'I have never suggested that the renewable energy target should be scrapped.' I have reviewed my comments and, to my knowledge, I have never called for the RET to be scrapped. Senator McLucas has drawn my attention to an opinion piece that I wrote last year, which said in part:

As an economically damaging protectionist policy, the RET should be removed.

The very next sentence in that opinion piece stated:

The adjustment should be done over time and the costs should be shared between fossil fuel, energy-intensive and renewable sectors alike.

I am happy to clarify that my opinion piece called for the RET to be removed over time, not scrapped—a position consistent with the policy itself, as it is currently legislated to close in 2030.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to take note of the minister's statement.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's statement.

The explanation we have just heard from the minister is less than fulsome, frankly. To say that we need to clarify the difference between 'scrapped' and 'removed' I think is quite pedantic. I do point you, Minister, to paragraph 5.1 of the Statement of Ministerial Standards, where it says:

Ministers are expected to be honest in the conduct of public office and take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public or the parliament. It is a Minister's personal responsibility to ensure that any error or misconception in relation to such a matter is corrected or clarified as soon as is practicable and in a manner appropriate to the issues and interests involved.

The 'clarification' that you have given us today, Minister, I do not think takes us quite to paragraph 5.1 of the Statement of Ministerial Standards.

Last Thursday I asked a series of questions in this place which went to comments that the new minister had previously made—particularly made to his constituency in the National Party in Queensland—which went to the effects test, to income splitting and to the Renewable Energy Target. I asked:

Minister, is abolishing the RET in the interests of renewable energy producers in northern Australia, and is that government policy?

In part, the minister said:

I have never suggested that the Renewable Energy Target should be scrapped, as you suggest in that question.

The word 'scrapped' did not appear in my question. That is completely incorrect, and then the minister goes on to give me what I would call gratuitous advice. He says:

…and that is not how you should have presented that question here.

I will leave that gratuitous advice where it sits. I will phrase the questions I want to ask in the way that I want to ask them.

On 19 August 2014, as the minister has advised this place, he said in an opinion piece in The Australian:

As an economically damaging protectionist policy the RET should be removed.

You could ask the question, 'Who is the minister speaking to in his op-ed piece?' I would suggest to you that the minister is talking to his National Party constituency in Queensland, but now this gentleman, this Senator, is a minister of the Crown. I debate Senator Canavan quite regularly on ABC radio; last week when we had a debate Senator Canavan indicated that he has to choose his words a bit more carefully now—or something along those lines. Yes, you do, but you always have to remember that, when you are playing with a coalition and when you are in government, what you said in the past still stands.

We in this place—particularly from my perspective—who come from regional areas do know that sometimes people will tell a story at home which may be a different story to the one that is told when you come to the parliament. Be very careful about that—we have to be very careful about that. In these modern days, Senator Canavan, we can find out what people to say right around the place. So what is said in Rockhampton or Townsville or Cairns is often reported in Canberra, and vice versa. So, Senator Canavan, I urge you to look again at paragraph 5.1 of the Statement of Ministerial Standards. I encourage you to limit your sharing of gratuitous advice and I thank you for taking heed of the letter that I have wrote to you today. I look forward to more compliance with what the statement actually says.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a few points on Senator McLucas's motion and, for the sakes of Senator Bushby and Senator Canavan, I will be brief. Senator Canavan was given notice of this on the day in question. In fact I stood up after question time and drew the article to his attention and asked him to correct the record. He then asserted that:

Therefore it would not have been removed because in that opinion piece I suggested that it should be ended and closed for new participants.

That is not actually what the piece says. If you go to the back of the piece, it says:

As an economically damaging protectionist policy, the RET should be removed.

Leaving that aside, I would say to Senator Canavan is that the opposition gave him notice on Thursday and then took the next step of writing to him.

I do think all ministers ought to correct the record where they believe the information is not correct. This was brought to your attention. I do acknowledge that you are doing the right thing today—I do acknowledge that. But I would say that there is no shame in having to give additional information to an answer. I suspect most people who have had the honour of sitting on the front bench in this place would have done so. That sort of accountability should not be like dragging blood out of a stone. You were given plenty of notice, but I do acknowledge that the record has been appropriately corrected—or additional information has been provided.

Question agreed to.