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

The turkeys have just voted for Christmas. I say to those in the Australian Labor Party that they will need to explain to the Australian people and explain a few answers to questions. The first one is: on what basis, what authority, do they claim to guillotine this legislation through the parliament? Is it on the strength of an election promise? Is it on the strength of an electoral mandate? Is it on the strength of popular demand for this legislation? During this committee stage, having avoided answering question after question during question time and in the public debate, the minister can explain to the Australian people on what moral authority, on what mandate or on what popular support she claims that this legislation needs to be guillotined through the parliament. She might like to also explain to the Australian people why this needs to be rushed through, as she has claimed. I suspect it is for Durban, but let us wait for the answer.

She might also tell the Australian people what is the actual environmental dividend. If we pass this legislation, by how much less will temperatures rise or how many fewer droughts will we allegedly have or how much less will sea levels rise?

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong says, 'exactly the same as ours', our direct action plan. For the first time we have an acknowledgment that our direct action plan will deliver the environmental dividends we have said but without the huge tax being imposed on every single Australian.

Another question that the minister might like to answer during the committee stage is: why is it that if we dig out coal in Australia to burn in Australia for Australian jobs and for Australian electricity it is such an unmitigated evil that it should be taxed, but if that same coal is dug out of Australia and shipped to China or India and burnt in China or India for the benefit of their populations and their manufacturing sectors, it is not an unmitigated evil and not worthy of a tax?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is counted against our carbon emissions.

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

As Senator Colbeck interjects, then why does that count against us? There are a number of questions that the Australian Labor Party needs to answer. My colleagues will be asking a lot of technical questions and of course Labor will not be able to answer them. But there is a fundamental threshold question; indeed, there are three. On what basis do you bring this legislation in? Was it an election promise, was it because you received an electoral mandate or was it because there is overwhelming public support? We know that the answer to all three questions should dictate what you actually promised the Australian people, which was no carbon tax. You have no moral authority, you have no mandate, you have no moral support, so on what basis do you bring it into this chamber? And please do not tell us the line that we have to do it because it is the greatest moral challenge of our time. Remember that Ruddesque line of the 2007 election: the greatest moral challenge of our time? That was the reason we needed it. The great moral challenge of our time could be so easily dispensed with when the electoral polls turned sour on them. If it is indeed the greatest moral challenge of our time, why did you deny its existence during the 2010 election? That is another question that the Greens might have to answer in this debate.

So I would invite the Australian Labor Party to search their collective conscience, knowing that they were all elected into this place on a promise of no carbon tax, as to why they are still supporting this legislation. They know they have no moral authority, they know they have no mandate, they know that there is no popular support. They have dispensed with the argument that somehow it is the greatest moral challenge of our time. So what is it? I suspect that, if the minister were truthful in her answer, she could be quite brief and say to us: 'The answer is because we did a deal with Mr Bandt, the member for Melbourne, and the Australian Greens to cling on to power.'

Senator Milne sits there smiling like the cat that has just swallowed the canary. I say, good luck to the Australian Greens, but bad luck to the Australian Labor Party. They have sold out their traditional supporters like never before in their history. They have junked the manufacturing workers, they have junked the miners, they have junked the agricultural workers, they have junked those who are on low incomes who battle on a weekly basis with the cost of living, because they will be imposing job losses and increased cost of living on those people in a manner which is a complete betrayal of that for which the Australian Labor Party was actually founded. So, without delaying the committee further, Minister, on what moral authority, what mandate or indeed what popular support do you claim to bring in this legislation?

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

Mr Deputy President—my apologies, Mr Chairman; it has been a long week—

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

But you have been making it shorter with the guillotines.

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

I will take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. When I was in opposition he guillotined and gagged I do not know how many bills and, with Work Choices, came in with 336 amendments some 35 minutes before the debate began.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

I am making the point, Senator, that I think the moral authority and the high-handedness of the opposition do not really have any grounds. I would say that the way in which the Leader of the Opposition in this place opened the debate probably indicated the tenor of this debate. They are not interested in the policy, they are not interested in the detail of the bill; they are only interested in making the same political points that they have been making now for a very long time.

We believe this legislation is in the national interest. We have worked very hard with those on the crossbenches and the Greens to deliver this package of legislation to this parliament. I do not think anybody in this place or outside of this place would have not recognised how many times we have tried to get a price on carbon through this place. I know that Senator Abetz wants to relitigate the previous election over and over again. What we are doing is debating this package of legislation. This is the opportunity for senators to move amendments. I see there are some seven amendments, most of which I think are moved by Senator Xenophon, and—

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

One amendment.

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

Is it only one amendment from the opposition? I am grateful to my colleague Senator Milne.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And alliance partner.

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

I will take the interjection from Senator Fierravanti-Wells. I will remind her that the people who were prepared to sit with the Greens on the migration legislation were those opposite. So she can have a go about the Greens voting with us on this, but they were voting with Bob Brown on the migration legislation.

We have been very clear about the policy reasons for this. We think this is about reducing the risk for the next generations of Australians and we also believe that investment in clean energy is good for the Australian economy.

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

The minister today, in summing up the debate, perpetuated the lie, perpetuated the fraud that is being conducted here. The minister again repeated this line about how emissions are going to be cut, how there is not going to be an economic cost from this carbon tax, how there is not going to be an impact on wages and how wages are going to be so much higher.

I am going to put something before the minister that I would like her to respond to, because during Senate question time she has always ignored these questions. I am going to draw the minister's attention to a few bits of information in the government's own Treasury modelling, to get to the bottom of this particular issue. According to the government's own modelling, domestic emissions in Australia will continue to grow, despite a carbon tax. Emissions in Australia now are at 578 million tonnes of CO2. By 2020, under a carbon tax, emissions will be at 621 million tonnes of CO2. According to the government's own Treasury modelling of the economy, in 2050 our GDP will be 2.8 per cent lower, or $100 billion lower, in today's dollars, than what it would be without a carbon tax. If you look at the impact on our GDP between now and 2050, year after year after year, and you add it all up in today's dollars, the cost of the carbon tax to our economy is $1 trillion.

When we made that assertion at the conclusion of our Senate carbon tax inquiry, Minister Combet sought to dismiss it. He sought to make the exact same assertion that the minister just made: the economy is going to continue to grow; the size of the economy is going to double; the economy is going to grow by $2.3 trillion. This is where the deception comes in. The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim a cut in emissions just because emissions are going to be lower than they otherwise would have been—because demonstrably emissions will continue to grow and then climb at the same time—and say that the economy is going to be so much better off, that the economy is going to continue to grow, and not also concede that there is going to be a reduction in the size of the economy compared to what it would have been.

After Minister Combet dismissed the propositions we have put forward about the impact of the carbon tax on the economy, we asked questions during Senate estimates. Guess what the Treasury official at the table said about the impact of the carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme which is to follow between now and 2050? She said that the cost will be about $900 billion. So $1 trillion, $900 billion—I guess she could not quite get herself to admit that our figure was right. She had to have a little bit of variation. But the principle here is that we have a carbon tax, and an emissions trading scheme, which has been put forward by this government, which has just gone through the second reading stage of the debate in the Senate and which will cost the Australian economy $1 trillion. Even though it is going to cost the Australian economy $1 trillion, emissions will continue to go up because, as well as reducing the size of our economy by $1 trillion, the government also wants to send $792 billion overseas to purchase permits in unidentified other parts of the world so that we can buy permission to keep our lights on in Australia.

The minister says, 'What the opposition is saying about a reduction in real wages is scaremongering.' I take you to chart 5.12, on page 88 of the Treasury modelling. Do you know what happens to real wages? They go down. The scary bit is that not only do real wages go down all the way to 2050 but they will be about six per cent lower in 2050 than they would be without a carbon tax, and there is no end in sight. Normally you would expect, with all of the assertions the government is making otherwise that there will be some sort of equalisation at some point, that the reduction in real wages would start to plateau, but it does not. If you look at chart 5.12 on real wages in the government's own Treasury modelling, you can see that real wages continue to go down and down and down.

So we have a carbon tax here which will push up the cost of everything and will increase the cost of living at the same time that real wages will be significantly lower and emissions will be higher, and there will be a $1 trillion cost to the economy and we will be sending $792 billion overseas. What is the sense of that? I would really like the minister to explain and confirm that she still stands by the Treasury modelling given the various assertions she has made. I would like the minister to confirm that she still stands by the Treasury modelling, because the Treasury modelling does show that there will be a cost to the economy of $1 trillion between now and 2050, which effectively means that every single Australian will have to work for nothing for a whole year to pay for the impact of a carbon tax on the economy between now and 2050. That $1 trillion is just about the whole GDP for the whole of Australia for a whole year. That is the cost this government is imposing on the Australian economy with its carbon tax.

I know that there are quite a number of people on the Labor Party side who share our concerns on this. It is very interesting. I did not hear a contribution in this debate from Senator Glenn Sterle from Western Australia. I did not hear Senator Sterle tell us during this debate what he thought about the carbon tax. I wonder why? Mr Tony Sheldon, who is about to become the National President of the Australian Labor Party, appeared before the Senate committee inquiry on the carbon tax. I know Mr Temporary Chairman Cameron that you were there when Mr Tony Sheldon arrived at our inquiry. He talked about the carbon tax being a death tax. You were there. Mr Sheldon has since had other things to say about Senator Evans and others. I am very intrigued that Senator Sterle has not actually found his way into the chamber to explain to us his view about the carbon tax, to explain his view about the impact of the carbon tax on the cost of living, on international competitiveness, on jobs, on people in the trucking industry and on real wages, given that the head of the Transport Workers Union, Tony Sheldon, who is about to become the National President of the Labor Party, has referred to it as a death tax.

Where was Senator Conroy? Why was Senator Conroy not telling us things about the carbon tax? I know that Senator Wong well knows that Senator Conroy shares our view that this is a bad tax, that this is a tax that will hurt ordinary Australian workers, that this is a tax that will do nothing to help the environment. We know that Senator Conroy agrees with that. The thing is, in the corridors of parliament a lot is said. I call on Senator Conroy, Senator Sterle and all the other Labor senators who in their heart of hearts know that this is a serious fraud being committed on the Australian people. The Australian people are being asked to make a sacrifice without it actually making any difference, and that is cruel. To impose a tax that will increase the cost of living, shrink the size of the economy compared with what it could be and result in lower real wages without actually doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is just cruel.

In this chamber I asked Senator Wong a question, and I urge her to now answer the question during the committee stage of this debate. I asked Senator Wong a question during question time, but in her usual fashion she did not actually say anything factual; she just gave us a barrage of political rhetoric and abuse. I asked Senator Wong to advise the chamber what the net effect of a carbon tax in Australia would be on global emissions. What will be the net effect of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme in Australia on global emissions? So far, the minister and the officials appearing before various inquiries have been ducking and weaving and have not been able to come up with any response whatsoever to that question.

At some point, not in this context, when we were holding the inquiry into the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, one official said: 'We can't really tell you that. We can't really know that because it depends on what other countries will do.' Well, exactly. It depends on what other countries do. Since the conference in Copenhagen we know that other countries are not prepared to impose an economy-wide carbon tax, other countries are not prepared to impose an economy-wide ETS, other countries are not prepared to inflict this much damage on their economies without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Other countries are not prepared to go down that path. This is of course highly relevant to the other big lie that government members and senators have been spreading in recent months, which relates to the proposal by the former Howard government to introduce an emissions trading scheme. That was at a time when there was an expectation around the world that there would be comprehensive global agreement to price emissions, including by countries like the United States. You can shake your head, Senator Thistlethwaite, but that is exactly the circumstance. You can refer to Shergold reports as many times as you like. A report that is put to government is not government policy.

I well remember the 2007 election because it was the first election that I participated in as a senator for the great state of Western Australia, and I well remember that the shadow minister for climate change, Mr Garrett, made a big stuff-up. The only reason after the election that Senator Wong ended up as the Minister for Climate Change and Water is that Mr Garrett stuffed up during the election, because Mr Garrett went out during the election and he said Australia might go it alone. Mr Garrett said Australia might go down the path of an emissions trading scheme irrespective of what countries like China and others do. Of course, Kevin Rudd forced him to withdraw that, forced him to clarify his statements, forced him to correct what clearly was an assertion that, if implemented in government, would not be in our national interest. That is the only reason why, after the election, Senator Wong became the minister for climate change, because Kevin Rudd, our then Prime Minister, did not trust Mr Garrett to handle this particular policy area of responsibility.

Now here we are. After the election, the government actually wanted to do exactly what Mr Garrett had said before the election. This irresponsible and reckless government wants to press ahead with a carbon tax when our trade competitors in other parts of the world are not proposing to go down the same path. It is proposing to impose a cost on businesses in Australia which will not be faced by their competitors in other parts of the world. This is a government which is seeking to make overseas, higher emitting businesses more competitive than even the most environmentally efficient equivalent business here in Australia, shifting emissions from Australia to other parts of the world, which is of course not effective action on climate change.

The minister, in wrapping up the debate, said: 'Well, it's time for us to act. It's time for us to do something about climate change.' Well, doing something is not enough, Minister. You have to do something that is going to make things better. Doing something that is going to make things worse is the worst of all worlds, and what you are doing in shifting emissions from Australia to other parts of the world where these emissions are going to be higher for the same amount of economic output is not effective action on climate change. It is, as a US congressman quite astutely observed about what was going on here, an act of unilateral economic disarmament. That is what you are doing, Minister. You are going for the unilateral act of economic disarmament, and that is not in our national interest.

I want to know from you, Minister: what is going to be the net effect on global emissions from this carbon tax? By how much will global emissions go down as a result of this carbon tax in Australia? Can you confirm that you stand by the Treasury modelling that shows that real wages will be six per cent lower by 2050 as a result of the carbon tax and that the GDP will be $100 billion lower in 2050 than it otherwise would be? (Time expired)

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

I have an actual question for the minister about the bills, so I would just like to put that. You possibly do not have all this at the desk, so I might ask you to take this on notice. On page 76 of the consolidated document, item 7.2.3, 'Planning a clean energy grid', is about long-range modelling work, I figure, around grid stability and so on, about a 100 per cent renewable energy network. The task that the government is putting to AEMO is to expand planning scenarios, with 'further consideration of energy market and transmission planning implications of moving towards 100 per cent renewable energy'. I understand how that is going to work with the NEM, and I guess the administrative arrangements are reasonably straightforward. How will this work for the South West Interconnected System, the Pilbara grid and other smaller but isolated networks across the country?

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

I thank Senator Ludlam for a question of some detail—which is what we usually do in committee debates. I will come back to him with a detailed answer on the NEM issues he has raised in a short period. I have just asked the advisers to provide me with some advice on that.

In Senator Cormann's contribution, he asked about the emissions trajectory. What the government has said and the Treasury modelling shows is that with a carbon price we would reduce Australia's emissions from what they would otherwise be. If you do not use that analysis, you are constructing a world which does not exist, which is a world in which emissions do not grow, which is completely illogical. I think the Treasury modelling shows that without a carbon price Australia's emissions will grow to over a billion tonnes by 2050—to 686 million tonnes in 2020, and with a carbon price there would be 621 million tonnes of domestic emissions and an offset of some 94 million tonnes through international linking by 2020.

In relation to the economic effects, I have said on many occasions that the Treasury modelling shows that the Australian economy will continue to grow at the same time as we cut pollution. The economy continues to grow, with average growth in GNI per capita of 1.1 per cent a year. Average incomes grow strongly. Jobs grow strongly, with some 1.6 million additional jobs by 2020, and Australia's carbon pollution would fall by 160 million tonnes per annum in 2020.

In terms of overseas permits, I do not believe there was a question in particular in relation to that; I think there was yet another set of criticisms about international linking. I think it is a very worrying trend that we have a Liberal Party that appears to believe, in relation to international action to support the global economy and international linking to ensure that Australian firms can adjust at the lowest cost, that both should be opposed on the basis of some strange protectionist or xenophobic criteria. In relation to the net effect on global emissions, Senator, if you assert that your policy achieves the five per cent reduction then the net effect on global emissions of our policy and your policy is the same. The difference is that ours costs less and will actually have an effect. We know that the coalition's policy will cost some $1,300 per household per annum to deliver.

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

I have got plenty of questions that over the next couple of days we will no doubt go through with the minister. I will turn to one in particular at the end of my remarks that follows on from the matters that Senator Cormann just raised and that the minister attempted to address. But I have an initial question for 17 of the minister's colleagues. It is this simple question: where are they? Where have they been in this debate? Will they actually let their views be known and justify their decisions and their reasons for supporting this carbon tax?

We have seen today and in the course of this debate a number of Labor senators simply dodge fronting up and answering. A number just have not had the courage to come into this chamber to spell out their reasons for supporting this carbon tax, to spell out their reasons for supporting a Prime Minister and a government that are doing the exact opposite of what they said they would do in the lead-up to the last election, an election where so many of these Labor senators were elected. In fact, if I look at the senators from my home state, aside from the minister herself not one of them has actually contributed to this debate. Not one of them has had the courage to come in and give us their explanations or their reasons why they think the backflip on their party's position is justified. Not one of them has been willing to go on the record and justify to the people of South Australia why it is that they actually will support this legislation and will back down on their previous promises.

Senator Farrell, Senator Gallacher and Senator McEwen, where are the three of you? Will you come in during this debate and explain your reasons? Tell us why you support this Labor backflip. Tell us why you are supporting this carbon tax, which is the opposite of what you, your party and your Prime Minister promised to do at the last election. So often we hear about the faceless men of the Labor Party, but what we have here are the invisible senators of the Labor Party. These three South Australian senators, out of 17 overall, will not address the issue and will not face up to the electorate for whatever reason. We hear so little on so many issues of importance from them. Where are they when we talk about the Murray-Darling? Where are they when we talk about the mining tax and the impact on developments like those of BHP? Where are they when we talk about the axing of the Green Car Innovation Fund and the future of Holden? Where are they when we talk about the carbon tax and its impact?

They are not alone in this because there are 17 Labor senators. It is not just those from my home state who have dodged it on this issue; there are many others, including many ministers who have responsibility for particular areas that will be directly affected and impacted. There is the faceless man in chief, Senator Arbib. Why has he not come in here and explained why his candidate to be Prime Minister, who made the 'there will be no carbon tax' pledge, did a backflip on her own promise and changed the government's policy days after the election? Senator Arbib has responsibility for some important areas—housing and welfare. We have had questions asked in this place and we have taken evidence in the committees that Senator Cormann and I have sat on from the social welfare sector. Senator Fifield has identified many of these concerns in the welfare sector, as has Senator Payne in the housing sector, about the cost impact of the carbon tax. Is it true that the cost of new housing will rise by around $5,000, as estimated by industry? Why hasn't the housing minister fronted up for this sweeping economic reform that the government talks about as having such an impact across the economy? Why hasn't the housing minister come in and talked about its impact on housing and tried to explain how this package ameliorates the impact on housing? Why hasn't Senator Arbib, as the minister responsible for large parts of the community welfare sector, come in here and explained during this debate how those charitable organisations and community welfare organisations, which have such significant costs from their electricity usage and such high overheads, are going to adapt under this carbon tax? I know the government points to certain aspects of compensation here, but the challenge for Senator Arbib, as it is for the minister at the table, is to give an assurance that all of those community welfare organisations and all of those charitable organisations will be totally compensated for the costs of this carbon tax. They do not give that assurance because they know that the money they are promising will not stretch far enough.

It is not just senator Arbib; it is not just the three South Australians. Senator Carr has not contributed during this debate—he is only the industry minister. He is only the minister responsible for the nation's major manufacturers and the major industries, which have such high overheads, so many of whom will be exposed by this tax policy, so many of whom will actually be the industries dealing with the complexity of compliance, dealing with the complexity, if they qualify, of meeting EITE status, dealing with the complexity of the paperwork that comes with that, dealing with the fact that their free permit quotas face erosion over time and dealing with the activity definitions that come with being in an EITE sector. There are so many questions for the industry minister, not least of which are the questions that go to the nub of how he and this government will ensure that all industries under this carbon tax will be guaranteed they can continue to operate in Australia and how it will not become more attractive for them to base their activities offshore and, as a result of that, for carbon to leak offshore, which is the nub of some of the points Senator Cormann was making previously. To Senator Collins, the parliamentary secretary with responsibility for education: what about the education areas? Again, there are high input costs for many schools, universities and the like in this package, not only for electricity but also, in time, the transport costs that will flow through beyond 2014. Where was Senator Collins to explain those impacts? We took submissions and inquiries from universities highlighting a significant cost for them. Where is the compensation for universities? Where is the opportunity for them to access any of the different funds that are established? What, in fact, can we see in the education sector for these universities and schools to ensure that they are left no worse off?

Senator Conroy equally failed to address this. He is undertaking the nation's largest infrastructure build—the $50 billion NBN. Where was Senator Conroy to explain how the impact on the costs throughout the build will be managed? It is not a build that will be over in a year or two; it is a build that will still be happening once fuels are included in the carbon tax, if the government gets its way. Where was he to explain how that fits within the cost parameters of the NBN? Perhaps Senator Wong, as his shareholder partner in the NBN, can explain how that works and whether there is an additional budget impact to that in the fiscal tables that have been outlined by the government to date.

I would not want to skip over Senator Evans. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has not addressed matters related to this carbon tax. Just like Senator Collins representing the education and university sector, Senator Evans could well and truly answer some of those issues that I highlighted. Senator Farrell, whom I highlighted as one of those three South Australian senators who have not talked about the carbon tax and who have not addressed these issues, handles the matter of urban water. Urban water utilities in the nation's capital cities are some of the most energy intensive organisations in the country. They are some of the biggest power users in the country. You need only look at the NGERS list of major emitters and those who have significant potential liabilities to see that the nation's urban water sector will face real pressures. Australians, who in many instances are already grappling with significantly higher water prices as a result of investments in desalination and other activities, will face yet higher water prices as a result of this. Where was Senator Farrell to talk about the impact on water?

Senator Feeney also failed to come in here and address this. Perhaps it is because Senator Feeney does not support the policy. Perhaps it is because there do not seem to be too many on that side who support Senator Feeney nowadays. But he could have come in here and addressed not only, as a Victorian, the impact on the manufacturing sector and the like in Victoria but also, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, how this will impact on our defence industries over time and what guarantees the government can provide for them.

I have mentioned the impact on transport a couple of times, and I would particularly like to have heard from Senators Sterle and Gallacher. Both are formerly of the Transport Workers Union and both made very public threats as this package was being finalised about the potential inclusion of transport in this package. It is made clear in the explanatory memoranda to these bills that it is the government's intention to include transport from 2014. They know it is part of the integrated package, part of the plan, that transport industries and trucking in this country will be affected, and yet they have not come in and explained how they reconcile that with all the noise they made prior to the release of the detail. Senator Gallacher, Senator Sterle: the invitation is there to come in and tell us why you think it is acceptable to pass this legislation knowing it is simply a foundation stone to do the very things that you were publicly opposing earlier on.

I will let the minister defend the package and its impact on transport now and in the future, because we saw during the committee inquiry into this a very defensive approach taken, particularly by Mr Windsor. Every time transport was mentioned, and when the Australian Trucking Association appeared before the inquiry to highlight its concerns, we saw Mr Windsor getting very defensive, saying, 'Transport's not in this package.' But transport is in this package. It is highlighted in the explanatory memoranda. It is part of the government's long-term plans. It is there in the clean energy future package overall. These people who want to claim it is not about transport really need to explain how they can support something that is a foundation stone for the inclusion of the transport sector.

There are many other Labor senators—I highlighted 17 in total. I will not go through them all by name. There are those who could answer as to the impact on the tourism industry as well, particularly the discriminatory impact that will see domestic airfares hit with the carbon tax while airfares to international destinations will not face the carbon tax, and what that means for the tourism sector.

I want to turn to the issue of global emissions that Senator Cormann raised and that the minister attempted to respond to. The minister said, 'If the coalition believe that their policy will deliver a five per cent reduction in Australia's emission, it will flow through to a reduction in what global emissions would have been, and therefore the same applies to our policy.' I want an assurance from the minister that, in saying that, she believes and is confident: there will be no leakage under this carbon pricing regime; that there will be no instance of Australian industries ultimately undertaking activities offshore; that the five per cent reduction, if that is what it is, to be achieved by 2020 against that 2000 baseline will actually be a five per cent reduction of what global emissions would have been; and that we will not see the reduction in emissions that may be achieved in Australia—or not in Australia, as the case may be with a reliance on permits, but we will turn to those issues later—eroded by the fact that there will be increased activity in countries that do not have a similar pricing mechanism in place. So while the challenge is there to the 17 Labor senators to come and explain themselves during the concluding stages of this debate and to address many of the specific issues across a range of industries that I have highlighted, the specific issue for the minister is: will you give the assurance of no carbon leakage under this plan? (Time expired)

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

That was not Senator Birmingham's greatest contribution, I have to say. I think he went through a list of Labor senators and gave a long political diatribe about that. I think he asked me about the finances of the NBN. I declined, Mr Temporary Chairman, to raise the issue of relevance, though I am not sure what that had to do with any of the bills before us. He did raise two issues which I should respond to, the first in relation to carbon leakage, and I would make two points on that.

The first is that there is a very significant amount of assistance to industry to recognise the needs of industry through this transition, with a focus on supporting jobs, which includes a $9.2 billion Jobs and Competitiveness Program, a $1.2 billion Clean Technology Program, a $1.3 billion coal sector jobs package and a $300 million Steel Transformation Plan, the last of which I understand the senator will be voting against, notwithstanding his avowed concern for jobs.

The second point I would make on that issue is to quote the senator himself in his speech in November 2009 when he quoted Prime Minister Cameron—whom he then agreed with and now disagrees with—a Conservative Prime Minister who does believe that action on climate change is important and who believes in the role of carbon pricing.

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

He wasn't very supportive of the carbon tax.

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

I am quoting Senator Birmingham. I am happy to quote you too, Senator Mathias Cormann. I have quotes about you too. He said:

But when I think about climate change and our response to it, I don’t think of doom and gloom, costs and sacrifice. I think of a cleaner, greener world for our children to enjoy and inherit. I think of the almost unlimited power of innovation, the new technologies, the new products and services, and the progress they can bring for our planet and all mankind. And I think of the exciting possibilities that may seem a distant dream today—changing the way we live to improve our quality of life. We’ve all got to get positive about climate change.

The senator went on to say:

I hope that is what we see from the government through this process.

What I would say to that, Senator, is that it is a pity we have not seen more from you on this process.

On the issue of global emissions, I think it is the same question as I have already answered from Senator Cormann.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously I will have a number of questions. I think if there is one thing you can say about me, Minister, it is that I have not supported this from the start.

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

You have been consistent.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been consistently—

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

I have no quotes for you saying, 'I'm going to support a carbon price'.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will have none from me. What I can say is that this is a very sad time for our nation; it really is. It is something that has frustrated so many people out there. They feel that they are disconnected from this parliament. They feel the parliament has gone off on its own form of frolic. There is a belief, I think, in the Labor Party that somehow people will forget about this. They will not.

We will start with a couple of fallacies. No. 1, it is of course not going to do anything to the climate. It is a question you have said I have asked you 600 times and, Minister, you have never answered me once: by how much is it going to change the temperature of the globe? It is not. That is the primary fallacy and, once they recognise it, people say, 'Then why are we participating in it?'

The other one is that you believe carbon is currently free; that apparently people are getting their power, their fuel, for free. They do not. The reality is that there are people out there—and they might be a long way from this chamber and out of sight—who cannot afford it as it is. That is the issue and the crux of why this thing is so selfish and so self-indulgent. There are people for whom one of the greatest issues in life is to try to pay the power bill. Where I grew up, in the New England, there are people—and you will laugh, you will giggle, and that absolutely antagonises them—

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

A point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman: none of us were laughing and none of us were giggling, so please do not say that—as a matter of courtesy, Senator Joyce.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

who stay in bed, especially when they are older and pensioners, not because they are infirm but because they are cold, and this is the most bizarre thing that we could ever be doing to them. Looking after people is the crux of what a good government does. We should be making their power cheaper, not dearer. We should be making their food more affordable, not less affordable. That is why there is this mounting frustration. You see decent people trying to do the decent thing. You go to a humble house—it might be a weatherboard in Ingham—where they prune their roses, they sweep their front veranda, they try to be decent citizens and they ask of us just one thing: for an environment to be created for them where the fundamentals of life are affordable. When we intrude on that for no real constructive purpose—there is no purpose to this—except to throw gold coins at the new Praetorian Guard of the Labor Party, the Greens, then people become furious. The only way that they will be able to quell their fury is at an election, and they are not going to forget. They cannot. It is an absurdity for our nation to be going down this path. To develop the metaphor, the whole reason that any organisation starts to fall apart is that an extenuated group starts to have excessive power in their deliberations. For you, that is the Greens. You have been driven into this corner by the Greens. You are deserting your core constituency. The other issue, of course, is the frolic. In any economy, at any time in history, one of the things that brings about a sense of economic disconnect is when you lose a sense of the fundamentals of economics. We are bringing into the economy something that is obviously a pricing mechanism. By your own words, it is a pricing mechanism. Therefore it works by putting the prices of things up so that people cannot afford them. The people who cannot afford them will not be the upper middle class or the wealthy; the people who cannot afford them will be the poor, the working class, the pensioners, the people in the regional towns. Why are you doing this to them? What is the purpose of this madness? You say: 'We must make a stand. We've got to do our bit.' What a load of rubbish! Do you think for one moment that we are not already doing our bit? There has been a quantitative increase in the efficiency of everything from internal combustion engines to coal fired power plants to everything we do—and we have done it without a carbon tax. We have done it because people, by their nature, have a form of ingenuity which allows them to become more effective.

When you think of the essence of this, who will be the greatest beneficiary of this? At the end of the day, I believe it will be the banking sector, from the commissions they make in trading paper permits around a marketplace. Were they doing it that tough that we needed to help them? Is that what this was about? Of course, they will lobby you. This is a frustrating day, a sad day. We know what we are going to do. We will fight this battle right to the end, because it is incumbent upon us as decent people to do it. We know that in the end we will lose, not because we have lost the argument, not because we got lower numbers than you in the election, not because you made a warrant at the election and you are sticking by your warrant; we will lose this because of the peculiarities of the Greens and the Labor Party and, in the other place, a couple of Independents who basically sold their souls and are now paying the price in their own polling.

This legislation is something that I think Franz Kafka would find a delight. I just want to go to one classic section. In part 8, division 2, we see:

On 1 September in the eligible financial year beginning on 1 July 2014, the Regulator must issue a number of free carbon units equal to the number worked out using the following formula:

where:

  …   …   …

A means the total number of free carbon units issued in accordance with this Part before 1 September 2014 in respect of the generation complex.

B means the Regulator’s reasonable estimate—

'Reasonable estimate'! In accountancy, we are always fascinated when people have this wondrous equation and everything is so perfect, until we get to the part where we have got to have a 'reasonable estimate'. When in doubt, just pluck a figure out of the air or out of some orifice! It goes on:

B means the Regulator’s reasonable estimate of the number of free carbon units with a vintage year beginning on 1 July 2013 that were not issued in accordance with this Part in respect of the generation complex because of:

  (a)   section 169 (power system reliability); or

  (b)   section 177 (Clean Energy Investment Plan); or

  (c)   section 181 (closure contracts).

And on it goes—clear as mud! How many days have we got to go through this rubbish? We have got until Tuesday next week to go through this rubbish. This is you running the country. The same people who had the planes grounded when we came down here, the same people who could not get fluffy stuff into the ceilings without setting fire to 194 houses, the same people who have got us $215 billion in gross debt, the same people who were responsible for Building the Education Revolution, the same people who shut down the live cattle trade, are the people who are going to cool the planet. When you get back, Senator Wong, I want you to tell me what your 'reasonable estimate' is, since you have so clearly been following my question! I want to know what it is. I want people out there to realise that you have heard the question. Of course, we are not going to get an answer—because this is not about getting answers.

There is a time when every country gets to a point of frolic where they start to lose control, where the Praetorian Guard starts to take over from the emperor and run the show, where the finances of the empire start to be invested in frolics and extravagances and we lose sight of the fundamentals. In a world where, as we speak, there are so many incredible uncertainties out there, the only thing a good government, a prudent government, would do would be to look across the horizon, to look across the waters that bound our nation, and say: 'The world is getting very tenuous. A smart, prudent government would start to do whatever we can to get our people into a strong economic position that takes into account the realities of where we are.'

One of the greatest ways to sequestrate carbon is to pray for rain. When it rains, the grass and the trees grow and carbon is sequestrated. One of the greatest ways to reduce human induced carbon emissions is to take a nation into recession or depression. Then you have an immense carbon reduction. There is no doubt about that. If that is what you want, you can lose sight of the economic fundamentals, you can take your nation over the precipice, you can be so naive as to say, 'It's all right; it's happening everywhere else but it won't happen to us.' Then we will have carbon reductions. We will have massive carbon reductions, because our debt will get to a point where, like everywhere else, people will start to question whether they want to lend us money.

Senator Wong, you are the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. You are the one who oversees our $215 billion in gross debt. You are the one who last week borrowed $1.7 billion extra. The week before that, you borrowed $2.4 billion. The week before that, you borrowed $2.1 billion. The week before that, you borrowed $2 billion. The week before that, you did not borrow any and, the week before that, you borrowed $3.5 billion, which you do not seem to care about anymore. It seems to be not an issue. You have this blase statement that it is small compared with somebody else. It is like saying the melanoma on your arm is smaller than the one on mine and therefore you do not have a problem. I never quite worked out how that theory works.

This will show the virtue of your competency in this area. In part A, division 2, in the discussion about what the regulators reasonable estimate is, can you now please give a definitive explanation of how the regulator comes to that reasonable estimate? What exactly is it, how does it work into the equation nominated in part 3, what is the purpose of that and what drove that decision?

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

You have a number of issues there, some of which were germane. There were certainly a lot of references to Praetorian guards and empires. I am not an imperialist; I am a republican.

First, in relation to the section the senator was reading out, from listening to it I think he was reading out a part of the legislation that deals with the allocation of permits under the Energy Security Fund—I am looking to the advisers' box to confirm I am right. You might recall that there is a capped number of permits available to the electricity sector to ensure smooth transition and in recognition that there is a significant carbon liability for parts of that sector. So, a significant amount of funds is made available, via the provision of free permits, to assist with that transition. It is an economically responsible thing to do. I believe the section the senator is reading out is part of those provisions that talk about how you allocate those permits. That policy has been in place for some time. I am not saying it is without controversy. Obviously different generators have different views about how the permits should be allocated, but I think that is the section to which the senator refers.

The senator also spent a lot of time talking about working people. I am very happy to talk about Labor's record when it comes to working people and pensioners. This government has put jobs first. Under this government we have seen over 700,000 jobs created. That is 700,000 people who get to engage in paid work and understand the dignity of work. It is 700,000 people and their families who have the capacity for economic security. It is 700,000-plus people who are able to ensure that they can provide for themselves and for their dependents. When it came to the global financial crisis, something those opposite sought to dismiss with a wave of hand, we put jobs first. Some 200,000 Australians would have been on the dole queues but for the actions of the government and the response from business and the economy more broadly. So I think this government has a very proud record when it comes to ensuring that we do what it takes to support jobs—now, through the global financial crisis, today and beyond. In regard to the economic stimulus, which supported 200,000 jobs, I would also say that it was opposed by Senator Joyce and those opposite.

A comment was made about pensioners. What has this government done for pensioners? We have delivered an unprecedented increase in the age pension. It was delivered by a Labor government, not by a coalition. They had 11½ years to deliver it and they never did. Who delivered it? A Labor government. Since 2009 we have delivered extra payments worth about $148 per fortnight for single pensioners and $146 per fortnight for pensioner couples combined—this is full pension rates. This was never delivered by those opposite. We have put in place an annual $600 carers supplement; we have increased the pension supplement; we have delivered increases to Family Tax Benefit Part A for families raising teenagers; we have increased the Child Care Rebate; and we have delivered Australia's first paid parental leave scheme. In addition, we have delivered the Education Tax Refund to contribute to the cost of getting children to school, and all that comes with that. So, I do not think I can allow the rhetoric from Senator Joyce, who supported Work Choices, to go unanswered, because this government has supported jobs, has delivered for pensioners and continues to support the social safety net, which the opposition would have to tear apart to meet their $70 billion black hole.

I think the senator also talked about rewarding work. If you look at the tax package that is part of the household package in the Clean Energy Future package you will see there is a very strong focus on rewarding work and a very strong focus on lower-income Australians. Part of the logic behind an increase in the tax-free threshold is that it is good for participation. It means people keep more of every dollar they earn. It is a good reform in its own right and it is significant in the context of the Clean Energy Future package. So, we are combining an important economic reform—that is, to increase participation through tax reform—with the need to provide assistance to lower-income Australians. Increasing the tax-free threshold will also particularly help the second income earner. We are increasing pensions as a result of the clean energy assistance package. We are also increasing family tax benefits for pensioners—an additional $338 per year. There are increases to the Family Tax Benefit and provision of a low-income supplement. These are all benefits that the government is putting in place because we understand the point that Senator Joyce made, with which I agree: there are many Australians doing it tough. The package has been put together with a very clear understanding of Labor values and the importance of supporting those in need as well as the importance of putting in place economic reforms to encourage more people into the workforce.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you noted in that last piece, I asked a specific question. It is extremely important that the Australian people understand whether a person is competent in an area or not. If they are not competent in an area they will generally give you a long palaver on all sorts of issues to try and cover up the fact that they do not know what they are talking about. If they do not know what they are talking about, you know that you are in for real strife when they bring the policy in. I will repeat the question—and I see they are desperately talking to one another because they do not have a clue. When I asked about the regulator's reasonable estimate, I wanted to know how they calculate that reasonable estimate. You will find it, Minister, in part 8, division 2, page 215, between lines 4 and 30 but specifically on line 24.

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

I am not sure which part of the question you want me to answer. The question was originally in relation to 161(3).

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will clarify. I want you to answer the question that I asked you, which is: how does the regulator determine reasonable estimates?

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

I will provide a reference to the EM and we will see if that is of assistance. It is paragraph 6.78 of the EM reads:

To determine the amount of free carbon units that should be allocated for each generation complex on 1 September 2014, the Regulator then must consider how many free carbon units have already been issued for that generation complex (term `A'), and how many units would have been issued for that generation complex but were not due to the operation of various other provisions of the bill (term `B'). [Part 8, clause 161(3)]

It goes on. There is an explanation in the EM on page 186. I could read that out, but I am sure that the senator has it.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am quite happy for you to read it out if you can find the area where it says how we calculate the estimate. What is the process of coming to a reasonable estimate? What is the purpose of having some fantastic equation and then subjecting that equation to a reasonable estimate? What on earth do you mean by 'reasonable estimate'?

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

I am advised that the regulator will make an assessment in accordance with the quite lengthy provisions from page 183 onwards of the explanatory memorandum.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia, we have not got a hope. This is an absolute joke. This is where it is going to go; this is who is running the show. This is why they have guillotined it. We have to finish this by Tuesday next week because they do not have the answers. They cannot answer the first question. This nation is heading towards an absolute fiasco. That stunned silence, Australia, is you looking for an answer. It is absurd, it is a travesty, it is a fiasco and it is disgusting. I do not know why we are doing to our country. There is absolutely zero competency on the other side. They do not have a clue what they are doing. They are dragging us down this path. You can pick anywhere in this legislation and they will not have a clue what is going on with it.

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

Perhaps the senator could settle down. This is the Senate, a chamber of the federal parliament. To be shouting in that way and engaging in personal abuse of me is hardly going to assist the debate. I respect one thing about you, Senator: you have consistently opposed a carbon price, unlike most of your colleagues. I understand that you do not like the legislation that is being voted on. But we could undertake this debate with some measure of civility around content.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have sat here and listened to the debate so far, it has become apparent to me that those opposite do not understand that there is no zero-cost policy or program when it comes to reducing emissions in our economy and throughout the globe. That is a point that is well understood by economists throughout the world. It is well understood by sensible policy makers. But apparently it is a point that is not well understood by or has not dawned on those opposite. There is no zero-cost way to reduce emissions in our economy so as to protect our environment. Yet those opposite wish to give the impression in this place and in the wider community that we can somehow reduce emissions in our economy with no cost to our nation, no cost to businesses, no cost to households—no cost at all. That is a complete fallacy. They are living in another world if they cannot grasp that fundamental issue. Of course there is going to be some cost in reducing emissions.

The approach that the government took in relation to this very important social and economic issue was to seek the advice of expert economists. The brief that was given to them was: how do we reduce emissions in the context of the commitment that our nation has made at a global level through international agreements? This is a commitment that those opposite say that they believe in and say is their policy—a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. Their brief was: how do we reduce emissions with the lowest-cost method throughout our economy? And of course those economists came back and said that the best way to do that was through an emissions trading scheme, a market based mechanism. That is what this legislation seeks to do.

Many of those opposite used to believe in a market based mechanism. Indeed, that is the Liberal Party philosophy: 'We believe in the efficiency of markets, that government should get out of the way.' Not when it comes to this issue!

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

The government is at the heart of this; it is a massive bureaucracy.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann is seeking to interject. Senator Cormann was one of those who stood up in this place, in his first speech, and spruiked the positive aspects of an emissions trading scheme. He said what a wonderful policy it was—what a great advance it would be for our nation to move to an emissions trading scheme. But this, of course, was under the leadership of John Howard, when John Howard believed in an emissions trading scheme and all of those in the Liberal Party followed his lead. Even when Malcolm Turnbull was the Leader of the Liberal Party, those opposite still believed in an emissions trading scheme—and, again, followed the lead of the Liberal leader.

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

We voted against it when Malcolm Turnbull was leader; you should check your facts.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Thistlethwaite, resume your seat for a moment. Opposition speakers were listened to in absolute silence, and the same courtesy should be extended to Senator Thistlethwaite.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. What has changed, of course, is the Liberal Party leadership; and with a new leader came a new view from those opposite. The new view was: 'We no longer believe in an emissions trading scheme, we no longer believe in the efficiency of markets; we now believe in a policy of subsidies to polluters.' So they are going to pay the biggest polluters in the economy, through a subsidy based system, in the hope that they will introduce new technology and new practices that will reduce their emissions. And of course there is going to be a cost associated with that. But those opposite will not tell the Australian people that. They will not come into this place and admit that there is a cost associated with reducing emissions under their scheme—and that cost is in the vicinity of $1,300 per household, as calculated by the Labor Party. To reduce emissions there is a cost. But the philosophy of the government is to ensure that we do it in the most effective and lowest-cost manner.

I am quite surprised that Senator Cormann and others have sought to criticise the government when it comes to the Treasury modelling associated with pricing carbon. The Treasury modelling is robust; it has stood up to scrutiny in a number of inquiries now. It is the modelling produced by the same Treasury that produced the modelling associated with the goods and services tax, which predicted that the cost effect on the CPI would be of the magnitude of 2.49 per cent. What did it come in at? At 2.5 per cent—they were spot-on. Treasury have estimated that the cost effect of carbon pricing on the CPI will be 0.7 of one per cent, a quarter of that associated with the goods and services tax—yet they seek to rubbish the modelling.

Let us have a look at the Liberal Party's record when it comes to modelling. I draw the Committee's attention to the modelling that was undertaken by the New South Wales government, associated with carbon pricing. In an article published in the Sydney Morning Heraldon 20 August 2011 Matt Wade said, when speaking with respect to the New South Wales government:

Analysis used by the Premier to claim the introduction of a carbon tax would be an economic disaster for NSW shows Sydney would actually have more jobs and stronger growth at the end of the decade because of the tax.

It goes on to state:

The modelling showed other regions, including northern NSW, the mid-north coast and south-east NSW would also have more jobs and higher growth compared with business as usual.

So there we have the record of the New South Wales government when it comes to economic modelling: they attempted to hide the fact that there will be jobs growth and that their own modelling showed it.

Then we have the attempt by the Victorian Treasurer to make claims that there will be job losses in Victoria. This was well pointed out in an article in the Australian Financial Review by Matthew Dunckley on 21 September 2007. Mr Dunckley said:

If Kim Wells—

the Victorian Treasurer—

were a quiz show contestant he would now be heading home empty-handed.

The Victorian Treasurer was put in the hot seat yesterday and entrusted by the government with facing questions about his chosen topic area economic modelling on the federal government's carbon tax.

Wells then staggered his way through a quarter-hour press conference giving every impression that he had not read the 112-page report prepared by Deloitte Access Economics and handed to the government two weeks ago.

That is the performance of the Victorian government when it comes to economic modelling.

Then, of course, in the Senate recently, based on a number of questions, Senator Boswell sought to take the government to task with respect to questions associated with economic modelling. Senator Boswell sought to take a number of Treasury officials to task at a hearing of the Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes associated with the modelling of the carbon price, on 10 August 2011. Professor Henry Ergas happened to be appearing before the committee at that point in time. Senator Boswell asked Professor Ergas a question:

This morning I asked a question which I will repeat to you and you can comment on it. It was: 'Respected economists like Henry Ergas have argued that the Treasury modelling has not been released to the public in order that taxpayers can scrutinise all data which his and her dollars have financed. Can you undertake to fully release this modelling?' There was a lady here called Meghan. I forget her other name.

Professor Ergas responded: 'Megan Gale', to which Senator Boswell said:

Megan Gale. She had a series of articles that you had written which she wanted to challenge. I did not have time to get them down but I think, in respect to you, that you should have the right to respond to the articles that she mentioned. I ask the chairman whether he will undertake to allow Professor Ergas to respond to those.

And then the chair, none other than Senator Cormann, replies:

Yes, go for it.

Well, pray tell Senator Cormann, what particular article written by Ergas that Megan Gail had responded to were you referring to? Was it the one in Cosmopolitan? Was it the one in New Idea? Perhaps it was the one in Who magazine.

Here we have a New South Wales Premier and a New South Wales Treasurer who apparently cannot read economic modelling; here we have a Victorian Treasurer who apparently cannot read, according to the Australian Financial Review; and here we have old Senator Boswell over there who thinks that of a Senate hearing on this issue as an episode of Australia's Next Top Model. And you seek to criticise us about economic modelling when it comes to the carbon price. Quite clearly, those opposite have no credibility at all when it comes to economic modelling, and the proof is in the pudding—the proof is in the results. These are sly and dishonest attempts by the Victorian government and by the New South Wales government to fool the public into believing that the consequences for jobs in their economies will be much more disastrous than they will in fact be. That is a despicable exercise.

Under the government's proposed package associated with the Clean Energy bills there is support for business, and the nature of that support is to ensure that our economy makes a transition from an industrial, carbon-polluting based economy into a clean energy future. The nature of that assistance will ensure that we are supporting research and development and that we are supporting jobs and investment in businesses which are subject to export competition and forced to compete in international markets. I will not go through the nature of that assistance or the level of it, but it is quite comprehensive.

The package also represents a great Labor tradition of economic growth with fairness. The nature of the package means that 50 per cent of the revenue that is raised will go to assisting households to make the transition into a clean energy future. The assistance is in the nature of payments to households. Those in receipt of family tax benefits will get additional payments. There will also be assistance to pensioners, both single-income pensioners and couples; assistance to jobseekers; assistance to retirees; and, of course, assistance to students. Those payments will ensure that the effects of the carbon price are mitigated for households. Again, the Treasury modelling has indicated that the effects of a carbon price on the average basket of goods for a household will be in the nature of $9.90 per week and that the assistance provided and proposed under the package will more than adequately compensate those households when it comes to the price increase effects associated with the legislation—and that assistance is in the nature of $10.10 per week.

In all respects, this package is a sensible reform. It is one that recognises that global warming is real and that we need to act and that the longer we wait the greater the cost will become. It recognises that an emissions trading scheme—a market based mechanism—is the most appropriate and the least-cost model to achieve reductions in emissions. Those reductions in emissions will be based on business-as-usual scenarios, which is the way that these issues are calculated at an international level. All of the international agreements that we as a nation have signed up to mention emissions and reductions on the basis of business as usual—what the reductions will be in the context of what they would have been had there not been action. That is consistent with international practice. And, of course, there is assistance for families, households, jobseekers and pensioners to ensure that they make the transition into a clean energy future.