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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. What will be the net reduction in global emissions as a result of Labor's proposed carbon tax for Australia?

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

I am not sure if the senator was in the chamber for previous debates on this issue but I think that question has been asked a few hundred times. I would make two points in response. First, in relation to the impact on Australian pollution, the carbon pollution would fall by around 160 million tonnes per year in 2020. Of course, the coalition do not want to talk about that—160 million tonnes per year in 2020 compared to what it would otherwise be. I would also make the point that that is in fact the coalition's policy but they are going to double the cost for Australian business in achieving it.

In relation to global emissions: obviously, as we have said on many occasions, climate change is a global problem. It demands action from countries across the world and action by major emitters and other nations as well. It is incorrect to suggest that the government has ever suggested that somehow climate change is only fixed by one country. What we do say is that it is a global challenge but we also say this: Australia has to be part of the response.

The policy question before the chamber when this legislation comes in will be: what is the best mechanism for us to be part of that response—that of the government, who want to impose a price on carbon, an economically efficient mechanism; or that of the opposition, who want to tax Australians $1,300 more per year to double the cost on Australian business of the transition to a clean energy economy? Which of the two policies is better?

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister is unable to advise the Senate by how much global emissions will go down as a result of Labor's carbon tax for Australia, can the minister advise the Senate by how much more emissions in China and other parts of the world will go up as a direct result of the government's carbon tax helping overseas emitters take market share from Australian businesses?

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

Essentially, that is a policy proposition that is against Australia taking any action on climate change.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not 'any' action.

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

I will take that interjection. Senator Abetz says 'not "any" action'. That is true, Senator Abetz. The action you wish to take is to achieve the same outcome at a higher cost—very sensible economic policy! You will achieve the same environmental outcome—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Government senators interjecting—

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

Senator Wong, just resume your seat. I again draw to the attention of senators that the time for debating this is at three o'clock. There are still 25 minutes to go.

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

We can't wait today.

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

I am sure you can. Senator Macdonald?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I thought you were going to bring the minister into order, but I will take a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked about the tonnes of carbon that would increase in China. She has been going for, what, 24 seconds and hasn't even got anywhere near to answering that. She is lecturing us on other things that were not the subject of the question, and I ask you to bring her to order and ask her to answer the question or sit down if she cannot.

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

There is no point of order. Senator Wong, you have 36 seconds remaining to answer the question.

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

Thank you. In relation to China, I would make the point I have made on previous occasions that China is leading the world in the production of a range of low-emissions technologies. It is also piloting emissions trading in a range of major provinces with a combined population of over 200 million.

I am accused of lecturing. If the opposition are going to persist with a policy that is economically stupid, if they are going to impose higher costs on the Australian economy to achieve the same outcome, well, perhaps they need a bit of lecturing.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister explain why the government is so intent on making overseas emitters more competitive than even the most environmentally efficient equivalent business in Australia? Does the government understand the concern that, rather than representing effective action on climate change, this is just an act of economic self-harm?

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

We want to impose a carbon price so that this economy can move efficiently to a cleaner energy economy, so we can exploit the opportunities that will continue to come for low-carbon goods and services globally. The difference between us and the opposition, if they want to talk about economic lunacy, is that our policy is economically efficient and their policy costs more. The party of Peter Costello is coming to the Australian people and saying, 'We want to impose a policy that doubles the cost of this transition.' They want to impose a policy that doubles the cost for Australian business and doubles the cost on the economy and that is to be funded by higher taxes—$1,300 a year—imposed on Australian households without any assistance. And they want to talk to us about economic lunacy!