Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. Given that the government has modelled the number of jobs it believes will be created in the renewable energy sector by its emissions trading scheme, can the minister tell the Senate whether the government has also modelled the number of jobs that will be lost in other sectors, such as manufacturing, agriculture and mining?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Abetz has the opportunity to consider the Treasury modelling he will see that that modelling does indeed look at the potential effect on different sectors of the Australian economy of the introduction of a carbon price. I invite his consideration of that modelling.

I make the point that, unlike those opposite, we are committed not only to supporting today’s jobs but to building the jobs of tomorrow and to building the opportunities for Australia tomorrow. We are focused on the fact that tackling climate change is important and also on the fact that there are economic opportunities for this nation as we move to a low-pollution economy.

Those opposite may want to take the view that they should simply oppose what the government does, and we know that Senator Abetz’s position on the issue of climate change is that he does not believe this is real. To those opposite I say that this remains a present and future challenge for this nation and the measure of how people will judge them will be whether they bring to this debate a degree of economic responsibility that understands the economic challenge of climate change as well as the opportunities. For example, we know that the Treasury modelling has said that the renewable sector will grow by about 30 times out to 2050, which will create jobs. We also know that United Nations figures estimate that the environmental products and services sector is projected to double from $1.3 trillion per annum to $2.74 trillion by 2020. Those opposite may want to say that we in Australia ought not to act on climate change—that we ought to forego the opportunity to be part of the millions of dollars of investment that will be there as the world moves to a carbon constraint—but if they do that they will simply confirm that they are still the men and women of the past and they will confirm that the 12 years of inaction by their government, where opportunities did go offshore to nations which were prepared to act on climate change, will be continued. They will confirm that they have nothing more to say on this issue and that they are simply locked into the climate change denial position that characterised the Howard government for so long.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I was not quite sure from the answer whether the minister has indicated to us whether the government has modelled the number of jobs that will be lost in other sectors, such as manufacturing, agriculture and mining, and if the minister could advise whether such modelling has been done. If so, will it be released? If not, why not?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I repeat that the Treasury modelling that was released publicly last year does look at the different way in which the Australian economy will change as a result of the introduction of a carbon price. Because Senator Abetz is on the public record as saying that he believes that weeds are a greater threat to Australia than climate change, we know where he is coming from in this debate. But the question will be whether his view will be the one that dominates. The fact is that some of those opposite understand that Australians do want us to take action on climate change. Perhaps some of those opposite also understand that there is a reason why governments around the world are increasingly looking to job opportunities and economic opportunities not only in renewable energy but in the clean technologies of the future. That is because we anticipate great growth in those sectors. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I ask the minister if her, or the government’s, refusal to provide the modelling is an admission that the government itself knows that its bureaucratic emissions trading scheme will destroy many more jobs than it is going to create?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the problem of writing a supplementary question before question time and not listening to the answer. I have indicated that the Treasury modelling was released last year. The International Energy Agency estimates that the amount of investment that will be required globally by mid-century to achieve the sorts of emissions reductions the world wants and needs is US$43 trillion to US$45 trillion. What Senator Abetz is effectively putting in his question—what underlies it—is the position that says Australia should not be part of that, Australia should not do what we need to do now to position ourselves to take those opportunities. And the reason Senator Abetz wants to take that position is that he does not want to act on climate change because, as we know, he thinks weeds are a greater threat than climate change.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister has nine seconds remaining in which to actually answer and be directly relevant to the question that was asked. It was about the modelling and the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of the government’s proposed ETS. It was not about what my policies may or may not be. It was a direct question deserving of a directly relevant answer. Even if it is not deserving, it is required under sessional orders.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: one of the difficulties in asking for the answer to be directly relevant is the way that the question has been raised, so I would draw you to the question that was asked. First of all, it was framed in the negative—will you refuse to provide?—which makes it very difficult, and the rest then goes on so that it is effectively a loaded question. In fact, it begs the answer itself. When you then try to be directly relevant to that issue particularly, it is incorrect to actually try to do that. If the opposition are going to raise this issue they should raise it in such a way that you can at least identify the question and the answer. Can I also draw the opposition to the answer that has been given. It has been directly relevant, not only to the first sup but also dealing with the second sup.

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

Senator Abetz was quite correct: there are nine seconds left, Senator Wong, for you to answer the question. I draw your attention to the question that was asked by Senator Abetz.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. This is a government that has designed a scheme which is focused not only on supporting the jobs of today but building the jobs of tomorrow. (Time expired)