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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CHAIRMAN: The question is—

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