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

Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to chart 3.42 of Treasury's modelling of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which shows that as a proportion of their income Australians in regional New South Wales spend 25 per cent more on electricity and gas than those in Sydney, Australians in regional Victoria spend 30 per cent more than those in Melbourne, and Australians in regional Queensland spend six per cent more than those in Brisbane.

Why is the Gillard Labor government making it harder for Australians to live in regional Australia by increasing their electricity bills even further through the world's biggest and most stupid anti working-family carbon tax.

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

Unsurprisingly, I do not have the modelling from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to hand, so I am not going to agree with the assertions that are in there. What I would say in relation to any increase in electricity prices—and the government has said there will be an increase in electricity prices—is that the government is also putting forward a package of reforms to tax, family benefits and pensions, amongst other things, to ensure that working families receive appropriate assistance to manage the impact of a carbon price, including on electricity. That is assistance, I might say, Senator Joyce has signed up to reversing.

In relation to regional Australia I would invite the senator to look at the last budget, where we put out regionally specific information about the spending that the government is putting in place, particularly in relation to hospitals, as well as education and infrastructure. What you will see—it is an embarrassment to the National Party—is that this government is investing more into regional Australia than ever occurred under the coalition. That is even before we include the National Broadband Network, which is an investment in regional Australia.

What people will see in the months and years to come is that Senator Joyce prattled on a lot—talked a lot—about regional Australia but did not really deliver for them. People will see that he certainly never delivered for them in the way in which this government delivered for regional Australia. It is very embarrassing, I think, for the National Party; unsurprisingly, they had to put out the coal seam gas discussion thing—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Blue paper.

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

They had to put out a blue paper—I am not sure what a blue paper is!—to try and differentiate themselves.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am aware, Minister, that we are better off—apparently by 20c per week. But the question is, of course: with the extrapolative increase of the cost in regional Australia, is this 20c a week going to be enough to cover people in regional Australia? If it is, can you please show us the proof and what conclusions you base that proof on?

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

Senator, the Treasury modelling goes through the whole-of-economy impact and looks at different household types. Cameos are available, from my recollection, from the Treasury website about how different household types are assisted. We are talking about a cost-of-living impact of some 0.7 per cent of the consumer price index. That is significantly smaller than that which occurred when the GST was put in place, which was 2.5 per cent of CPI.

I thank the senator for his concession that some families will be better off, even if he says it is only by 20c a week; I think that is the first time he has conceded that. I would point out that that is obviously an average impact. We have targeted unashamedly the assistance to lower income Australians, to people on lower incomes—to pensioners, disability support pensioners and people earning less than $80,000 a year. So people, regardless of where they live, will get that assistance. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, I did not say they would be better off; you said they would be better off. They will be worse off.

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

It is not time to argue—go to the question.

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

Given the modelling shows that the hardest hit areas from the Gillard Labor government's carbon tax will be regional Australia, because that is where the mining, the manufacturing and the agricultural jobs are, what has the government got to hide by not releasing any modelling of the impact of a carbon tax on regional Australia? Why won't you be upfront and at least answer one question, something which you have not done thus far?

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

The assertions, again, in the question are incorrect. The senator continues to suggest that, for example, the mining industry is going to be somehow damaged or killed by this carbon price.

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

Why don't you ask the mining industry?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're too busy investing!

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

Senator, why don't we have a look at what the mining industry are investing, have a look at how the investment has grown year on year over the last three years, in the context of a debate around a price on carbon. I would probably have a look at where the hard cash is, where the numbers are, rather than rely on Senator Joyce telling everybody that mining was going to—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is on relevance. The minister could answer the question by answering it and just releasing the modelling.

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

There is no point of order. The minister has 19 seconds remaining.

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

We have released an enormous amount of modelling. The reality is no amount of modelling released by the government will ever alter the position of those opposite, and they should stop pretending to people that they actually care what the modelling says. The modelling says we will have more jobs. The modelling says we will have a bigger economy. (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr. Can the minister respond to claims that Australia's manufacturers have no place in a low-carbon economy?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. I just indicate to the Senate that, far from seeing the low-carbon economy as a threat, I take the view that this is an enormous opportunity—an enormous opportunity to modernise manufacturing, to refocus manufacturing and to generate jobs for Australian manufacturing. The government is absolutely committed to ensuring we are able to modernise industry in such a way as to produce jobs. The government is committed. This government is committed, as we have seen by carrying the legislation today, to a comprehensive package of measures not just to assist households and communities but to assist industry, to assist workers and to assist regions and to ensure that, through the Clean Energy Future package there is some $20 billion worth of assistance so that our industries are able to modernise, are able to front up to the challenges of the 21st century and are able to secure the jobs for the period ahead.

Our job is to work with manufacturing, and we will. This government will be working with manufacturing to ensure that we have the ability to face up to these challenges squarely. There are phenomenal opportunities. Rather than being a threat, this is a huge opportunity to put Australia at the forefront of economic modernisation. To ensure that we are able to seize these opportunities, the government has provided $20 billion worth of assistance.

Those opposite that campaign against these measures have to also come clean and say they are prepared to withdraw $20 billion worth of assistance from Australian industry, from Australian workers and from Australian jobs. What we have seen here— (Time expired)

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! When there is silence, we will proceed.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! On my left: when there is silence, we will proceed.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister confident that Australia's scientists and researchers are ready to support manufacturers in this challenge?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. Universities and research agencies are right on the front line in terms of assisting industry to deal with these great transformations that are facing this country. Scientists in Australia and researchers in Australia can look to the government for a 43 per cent increase in the level of support for science and research. The CSIRO and all our major science agencies can look to this government for a level of support unparalleled in the history of the Commonwealth. We understand just how important science and research is to develop the capabilities to ensure that we have those high-skill, high-wage jobs in this country, so that we can modernise our firms, so that we can—

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

What about Coogee Chemicals?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want to talk about a chemical company in Victoria, get your facts, Senator Abetz, get your facts! What you are repeating is the ignorance peddled by sections of the press. You are only too happy to peddle fear. You are not interested in blue-collar workers, you are not interested in the future— (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. What evidence can the minister provide to the Senate to justify his claims about the commercial potential of clean technology?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to direct the senator's attention to the Commercialisation Australia grants I have announced this week. These are grants that back up people who want to back themselves. They confirm that Australians are willing to invest in themselves and they are willing to ensure that they have a stake in the future. Green Distillation Technologies from New South Wales is one example. They are building a pilot plant to turn old tyres into oil, carbon and reclaimed steel. Theirs is the sort of technology looking to ensure that we are able to reduce Australia's dependence on oil imports. We see the sort of technology that gets old tyres out of landfill and into more productive use. That is the sort of message that we want to sell to the world.

I know there are some ignoramuses on the other side of the chamber who are not interested in science, not interested in economics, not interested in facing up to the challenges of the 21st century. But the sort of knuckle dragging that we have seen— (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the $200 million Regional Structural Adjustment Assistance Package for affected regions under the Gillard Labor government's carbon tax. Can the minister confirm what modelling has been undertaken by the government to ensure that the $200 million allocated to the assistance package will be enough to assist all regions and communities affected by the negative impact of this carbon tax?

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

I thank the senator for her question. It deals to a great extent with the same issues that her colleague asked previously. As I have explained, the government has put in place a very significant set of assistance whereby nine out of 10 households will receive some assistance through tax cuts or payment increases; about two out of three households will get payments or tax cuts that cover their entire average impact; and about four million households will get an extra buffer with assistance that is at least 20 per cent more than the average price impact.

In addition, there are a range of benefits and opportunities for regional Australia under the package. The Carbon Farming Initiative will enable farmers to benefit. Obviously the carbon price does not apply to agricultural emissions, but there are opportunities through the Carbon Farming Initiative. We are also investing, as the Senate would know, to unlock the potential of clean energy in our regions in solar, in wind, in geothermal—all investments that are about clean energy jobs.

In addition, there are some $4.3 billion of investments in regional Australia in the 2011-12 budget. Let us just pause for a minute to recognise that: $4.3 billion investments in regional Australia—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I specifically asked about the Regional Structural Adjustment Assistance Package. It is on page 59 of the Securing a clean energy future. I wanted to ask about the modelling that had been done to ensure that $200 million was going to be enough to cover those regions that are acutely affected by the carbon tax.

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

There is no point of order. I believe the minister is answering the question. The minister still has 42 seconds remaining to address the question.

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

It is a little embarrassing, isn't it, because there is so much assistance to regional Australia that this government is providing. They do not want to hear about the budget and the investment in hospitals and schools in regional Australia. I thought you represented regional Australia, Senator. Don't you want to hear about the investments there? You want to just ignore them. You want to pretend that this is a carbon price that is being put in without regard whatsoever to over $4 billion being invested in regional Australia—

Senator Joyce interjecting—

Funding that you never could get, Senator Joyce. I do not know whether you have got something wrong with your neck—there is some very strange movement. You could never get that when you were in government for your constituents.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister outline the criteria that would define those regions that have experienced 'acute impact' as a result of Labor's carbon tax? Given the impact of a carbon tax on the dairy industry, for example, will those regions reliant on that industry be able to access this assistance and this package?

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

There is $200 million of structural adjustment assistance that is available, as the senator says, to support regions that remain strongly affected by the carbon price. This is over and above the very significant assistance that I was going through earlier. I understand this is to be delivered by Mr Crean, but I will check that that is the case and come back to the Senate if that is not correct. I will provide more information. Obviously the bills were passed today, so I am not sure we would have done guidelines on funding in the last hour and a half or couple of hours, but I will certainly come back to the senator if there is—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Wong, ignore the interjections. They are disorderly. All you need to do is address the question that has been asked.

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

I can understand why the Liberal Party is so embarrassed by the National Party. It really has been a very uninspiring contribution in this whole debate. I will come back to the Senate and the senator if there is further information in relation to the guidelines subsequently.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. How does the government plan to monitor the impact of its carbon tax on regional Australia so the assistance package that my questioning has been about can be provided directly to communities in regional Australia? Can the minister guarantee that no Australian who lives in the regions will be worse off as a result of the Gillard Labor government's carbon tax?

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

I just indicate that I believe that this is a matter that Minister Crean will administer, but I will confirm that. I understand that, in the course of administering this program, there will be monitoring of regional impacts to identify those regions which may require assistance in addition, if I may say, to the comprehensive assistance which is provided through the Jobs and Competitiveness package and the Energy Security Fund. So there is a lot of assistance in place.

I am asked about guarantees. What I would say is this: the senator is actually in a position to guarantee that she will impose a higher cost on the people who elect her. That is the position of the National Party and the Liberal Party. Their policy will, in fact, cost the people who elect them more. To achieve the same environmental outcome, you will have to tax people more and you will have to take back tax cuts and pension increases that the government is funding through pricing pollution.