Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) 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. Is the minister aware that the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from proposed gas plants, coal-fired power stations and other fossil developments in WA will total around 80 million tonnes by 2016, which represents a doubling of Western Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, and that a single proposed plant—Woodside’s proposed gas plant at James Price Point in West Kimberley—represents 32 million tonnes of that, which is equivalent to the total greenhouse gas emissions of New Zealand? What action does the government plan to take to ensure that this does not cause a greater burden on individuals and other industries and households as we aim to reduce our national greenhouse gas emissions?

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

I thank Senator Ludlam for the question. I am not aware of the precise number of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of emissions in the projects to which he is referring, but I am aware broadly of the issue and would make a number of points—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That doesn’t surprise us, Penny!

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

Yes, I am sure Senator Bernardi would carry that information around in his head. I would make a number of points about this, Senator Ludlam. You asked: what is the government proposing to do? The government made clear before the election and now that we believe a carbon price is an important economic reform. It is also demonstrably one of the key ways in which you ensure that the environmental cost, the cost of the effect on the climate, of pollution is factored into economic decision making. This was a key part of the very lengthy debates we had in this chamber on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

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

What was your policy, the day before the election, August the 20th?

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

When Senator Abetz is finished.

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

Ignore the interjections, Senator Wong.

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

I know every time climate change is mentioned he gets a bit upset, but anyway.

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

He gets all hot and bothered.

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

He gets all hot and bothered, says Senator Carr—that is quite a good interjection. My point is that we have had a number of debates in this chamber where I and other government ministers and senators have put very clearly the government’s view that we do need to price carbon. We need to do so to ensure that the costs of climate change are factored into economic decision making. We are keen to work through the multiparty committee, on which your political party is represented, Senator Ludlam, about the best way to put in place that important economic reform.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, if you are not aware—and I guess I would expect you would not have it with you—of the precise proposed emissions coming from these new plants by 2016, would you take on notice the question of whether our estimate of around 80 million tonnes by 2016 is correct? Does the government intend to require high greenhouse gas emitting LNG projects to sequester their omissions as a binding condition on their approval?

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

In relation to the first, I am happy to take that on notice and refer that question to Minister Combet. In relation to the second, that is a question that goes to the discretion that the environment minister, who now has a much longer title, holds under the EPBC Act. It is not the practice of this government—and I have made this clear in this chamber on previous occasions—to be interfering in that statutory discretion, and I do not intend to commence doing so now. We have said very clearly as a government that we believe that a carbon price is the most efficient way for us to ensure that businesses and the whole of the economy take into account the costs of climate change. We believe it is an important economic reform. We are working through processes to ensure that this can be achieved in a way that reflects common ground in this parliament and, hopefully, in the Australian community.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question, which goes to the question of liability. After establishing a dangerous precedent last year in making federal and state taxpayers liable for future leakage from sequestered emissions from the Gorgon project, will the government commit to now making companies responsible for any future sequestration projects liable for leakage as opposed to Australian taxpayers?

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

As a matter of courtesy to the senator I am rising to respond, but this is now the third portfolio he has traversed in his question, his supplementary and his second supplementary. The issue of sequestration and the legal liability associated with that was in Minister Ferguson’s portfolio—from memory. If I am wrong I will correct that, but it is my recollection that the carriage of that legislation was Minister Ferguson’s. The previous question related to Minister Burke, not to Minister Combet. I understand the senator is making a political point, but he is traversing three portfolios with this question and possibly it might be best to ensure—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is not the Australian Greens’ responsibility for how the government has carved up responsibility for climate change all over a variety of different portfolios. Would the minister please answer the question.

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: it is the responsibility of those who ask questions in this place, as we saw with the first question asked here today, to identify the portfolio in which they wish to ask the question and ask it within that portfolio. Then of course the minister will be responsive to the question, either in their individual capacity as a minister or in their capacity as representing another minister in the other House. But it is not a point of order to rise and complain about a general question in question time that the whole of government should answer.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: it is very simple. The fact is that the question was clearly principally in the minister’s domain. If there are matters where the information could better be got from another minister, she ought to take it on notice and provide the Senate with that information. It is a very simple process on a matter where it is not complicated to get information to the Senate. Unfortunately, no information at all has been forthcoming to the Senate on the valid questions asked by Senator Ludlam.

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

On the point of order, Mr President: I agree with Senator Ludwig: it is not really a point of order; this is something that should be taken up by the Greens in their caucus meetings with the Labor Party every week.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Peace seems to have broken out, but, in spite of peace breaking out, the matter raised by Senator Ludlam is not a point of order. I can only expect a minister to answer those parts of the question that relate to their portfolio, as I indicated with the first question that was asked in question time today. As I have heard the answer, the minister has been responding to those parts of the portfolio that are under her control, and I believe that the minister has indicated that there are other ministers involved in the questions that have been raised by Senator Ludlam. The minister has 20 seconds remaining to answer the question.

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

In response to Senator Ludlam’s point of order or the issue he raised, I have sought to be helpful, Senator Ludlam. I did seek to answer the second question, notwithstanding that I no longer represent the minister for the environment. I would suggest, if it would be helpful—(Time expired)