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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Can the minister confirm that the carbon tax proposal was not taken to either the cabinet or the Labor Party caucus before it was announced as official government policy by the Prime Minister and others last Thursday?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While it is obviously the policy of governments not to discuss what occurs in cabinet, I can confirm for the senator that, in accordance with normal government processes, the government’s position was determined by cabinet.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Since the official Labor Party caucus was obviously sidelined, even if the minister has not confirmed that the party room was consulted, is it that Senator Bob Brown and Senator Christine Milne are now part of the de facto Labor Party cabinet?

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

The Minister need only respond to that part of the question which might prefer to his portfolio responsibilities or those of the minister he is representing.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that, as I indicated in the primary answer to Senator Cormann, decisions in relation to the Gillard Labor government’s position are determined in accordance with normal government processes, and that includes cabinet processes. I do not intend to take the senator through those decision-making processes in detail other than to say he is wrong in his assertion. This illustrates the fact that the opposition have nothing to say about policy. They want to discuss the government’s processes and the role of the Greens—petty political point-scoring—but have nothing to say about the big issue of the challenge of climate change. They have nothing to say about it at all. This government is committed to working with those of goodwill and an interest in public policy in this parliament to get a good result for Australia. That is what we are seeking to do. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question.  I assume the minister is telling the Senate that he is unaware of Labor members and senators around parliament complaining about having been excluded from the carbon tax decision. I ask the minister: given this broken ‘no carbon tax’ promise will now push up the cost of living for all Australians, can the minister explain why the Prime Minister is hurting working families just to make the Greens happy?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This again confirms that the opposition are bereft of ideas and bereft of any contribution to public policy. They are concentrated on their own internal divisions trying to prop up Mr Abbott’s leadership, under attack from the moderates on issues as broad as multiculturalism, immigration, foreign aid and now climate change. This government actually thinks climate change is a problem that needs to be tackled. We have consistently argued that we need a constructive response to the challenge of climate change and pollution in our environment. We have sought in successive parliaments to get a solution that allows us to bring in a price on carbon and allows us to tackle this great challenge. I would expect that the opposition actually try to engage in that real public policy challenge. Unfortunately, they refuse to. They look inward and are only interested in opposing. I think that other members of the parliament will obviously have to take the lead. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor 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. Can the minister outline to the Senate the benefits to the Australian economy of putting a price on carbon? In particular, what certainty will this carbon price give businesses around future investment decisions?

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

I thank Senator Hurley for that question—a question that recognises that this is an economic reform. Pricing carbon is a major economic reform that will transform our economy and it is a major economic reform that those opposite are simply not up to. It is a reform that will transform our economy, and because it is an economic reform we know on this side of the chamber that we have to provide certainty to business so they make the investment decisions which are necessary for the transformation of the economy.

The opposition appears to have forgotten that business investment decisions are not only made for one year but made for many years. Businesses need to be thinking not just about the next year but about the next five years or the next 10 years. Certainty around a price on carbon means that businesses are better able to plan and prepare for these future decisions. Certainty around a price on carbon is fundamental to the better planning and preparation for these future decisions.

We are at a time in this country and in this parliament where we face a choice: do we want to shape the future or do we simply want to have the future imposed upon us? On this side of the chamber, we have Labor senators who are prepared to look to the future, prepared to reform for the future—a party that is prepared to build today for tomorrow. What we are faced with is nothing but a party of wreckers, led by a man who knows how to brawl, a man who knows how to destroy but a man incapable of leadership at this time, a man incapable of leadership in the face of this challenge. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister outline to the Senate why investment certainty around a carbon price is likely to have beneficial flow-on effects to other areas of the economy and to members of the community?

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 goes to the issue of the extent to which the risk of uncertainty causes flow-on effects throughout the economy. It is interesting, isn’t it, to note that the party opposite used to be a party which believed in market mechanisms, used to be a party that understood the importance of utilising market mechanisms? Now it is a party that does not understand the importance of business certainty and is prepared to rip that away with its irresponsible pledge, delivered yesterday by the chief wrecker, Mr Abbott, to remove the price on carbon if it is ever to return to this side of the chamber. It is a party that used to understand the importance of business certainty and the importance of market mechanisms, now simply looking to its short-term political advantage. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have another supplementary question for the minister. Can she outline any alternative approaches to putting a price on carbon and what risks these alternative approaches may engender?

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

Really, there are no real alternatives on that side. The only alternative is more risk, more uncertainty, more blocking. They are good at wrecking action on climate change. They are good at saying no to reform, but they do not know how to reform. They do not know how to build. Perhaps they ought to take some heed of what Mr Turnbull has said in recent times and is on the record as saying: first, that their policy to deliver a five per cent reduction is ‘a recipe for fiscal recklessness’. Senator Bernardi ought to take note of Mr Turnbull saying he is supporting a policy that is a recipe for fiscal recklessness. But we also have recent revelations in the media that suggest Mr Abbott was even prepared to hint he would have supported a carbon price if that had meant he could form government after the last election. What an indication of the political opportunism of those opposite. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, 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. Minister, I refer to the Prime Minister’s announcement last Thursday that because of ‘changed circumstances’ she was breaking her commitment made on 16 August 2010 that ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’. Can the minister inform the Senate exactly what the changed circumstances are to excuse the abandonment of the Prime Minister’s solemn promise to the Australian people? Could the minister indicate which countries have been inundated by rising sea levels since last August or which animal species have become extinct since last August? Or are the changed circumstances simply that Senator Bob Brown is now our de facto Prime Minister?

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

One of those questions in that series of questions really said it all, didn’t it? Fundamentally, there is a cabal of those opposite that simply do not accept the science. They hold extreme views—views that might be common on a One Nation website but are not common among the scientists who are experts in this field. Fundamentally, every question that some of the people in this chamber are asking about this issue—and the good senator who asked the question is one of them—proceeds on the basis that they do not accept the science. We do not agree. We do believe that the consensus science is very clear. It is extraordinary that those opposite, who pretend to know something about risk, would seriously say to the Australian people, ‘Yes, we know that there are all these world renowned scientists who tell us about the risk that climate change poses not just for today but for the next generation, for Australians beyond today’—all of the scientific evidence—yet still say we do not have to do anything. ‘We do not have to do anything; we think our political advantage is in running a scaremongering campaign, a fearmongering campaign, and closing our eyes to this challenge.’ You believe that that is the responsible thing to do. We on this side of the chamber do not share that view. We believe that climate change is real, that human beings are contributing to it and that we in this nation have a responsibility to act, not just because of today but because of tomorrow and what it means to future generations of Australians. This is a tough reform. We know this is a tough reform. So was tariff reform, but Labor did that. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given a Labor-Greens carbon tax will cost jobs, close mines, drive investment overseas and increase the cost of living, how many industries are the Labor-Greens alliance prepared to sacrifice because of this regressive tax?

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

We see again yet more scaremongering and fearmongering on the other side. We know what climate change means; we know the risk that climate change poses. There are some more sensible people on the other side, such as Mr Turnbull, who understand this issue; but when some on the other side are confronted by this generational challenge, all they can do is fearmonger. That is all they can do. They are good at wrecking, no good at building. You are all problem, no solution. That is the reality.

We on this side understand we have to transform our economy, we have to be able to compete in a world where low carbon will become more competitive and we have to compete in a world where our competitors are shifting to a low-carbon economy. We want to be in a position in 20 years time where this country is more dependent on clean energy and clean energy jobs than it is today. That is what we on this side want to do.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer to the statement by Greens Senator Christine Milne last Friday that they are now power sharing with Labor. Can the minister tell the Australian people who is actually running this country?

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

I think a look at the standing orders would be in keeping when asking those types of questions in future. Minister, you can answer the part of the question that applies to your portfolio, but you cannot answer those parts which do not apply.

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

The Labor Party I think has been on record many times on these issues. We quite clearly said to the Australian people that we believe that climate change is real, that human beings contribute to it and that carbon pollution contributes to it, so we need to do something about it. It is true that we were blocked—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Senator Wong, resume your seat. I understand there might be an eagerness to debate the issue, but the time to debate it is at the end of question time.

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

It is true that we were blocked in this place three times from putting a price on carbon. It is also true, as the opposition well knows, that we formed government as a minority government and the Australian people voted for the parliament we have. So, yes, we acknowledge we are prepared to work with the Independents and with the crossbenchers to get an outcome which is in the national interest. It might seem passing strange to those opposite that we would be prepared to work with the parliament to do something in the national interest. That is because you are entirely disinterested in the national interest.

Louise Pratt (WA, 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 please explain to the Senate the need for certainty about a carbon price to promote investment in green jobs, green technology and a greener Australia?

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

I thank Senator Pratt for her question. The recently published Pew Charitable Trusts report of last year highlighted that in the period between 2005 and 2009 clean energy investments throughout the G20 increased by 230 per cent. What it also highlighted was that Australia was falling behind its G20 counterparts and that present calculations indicate that Australia ranks 14th out of the 20 countries. So it is little wonder that business has reacted with dismay as the Liberal Party turns its wrecking ball on this very important economic reform that has been initiated by the government

What the Liberal Party are doing is essentially seeking to cripple confidence. They are killing jobs, they are posing a sovereign risk to this country, they are posing a risk to investment and they are exposing Australia to international ridicule. They are pandering to the Flat Earth Society in the hope that they can impress a few knuckle-dragging senators from some of the outlying parts of this country. But of course they are not impressing the business community in this country. They are not impressing those in the Liberal Party—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Senator Carr, resume your seat. When there is silence we will proceed.

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

They may be impressing One Nation advocates, they may be impressing the far Right demagogues in this country, but they are not impressing those that are genuinely progressive in the Liberal Party—and I know there are a few of them still left. We just had to watch Q&A last night to see Mr Turnbull making the point, in relation to Liberal Party policy, ‘I can’t cite any economist that agrees with it’—not one economist could he find. He said that he frankly preferred a price on carbon by a market based mechanism. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister please further inform the Senate what the government is doing to tackle scaremongering and pessimism about carbon policy in the business community?

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

I thank Senator Pratt. The Leader of the Opposition seems so intent on destroying these proposals that he clearly has not had time to read the documentation that is put before him. He said he would fight every second of every minute of every hour of every week of every month so that he would go on and on in seeking to undermine confidence in the future investment in this country.

What we can do is turn to Mr Turnbull, who says that ‘any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is—I will not use a favourite term of Mr Abbott—bulldust’; I think that is appropriate. Moreover, he knows it. What we can say is that there are those in the Liberal Party that know the truth. They do know the truth that the Leader of the Opposition, in making any suggestions that you can undertake significant change like this without cost, is not telling the truth. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Could the minister please inform the Senate how the government’s business support programs will help businesses understand and act on their opportunities?

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

The government is not blind to the difficulties of transition. We understand that acting early actually provides some real advantages for this economy. We understand how important it is to ensure that we get the investments necessary to transform this economy. That is why we will be working with business and with industry for a long time, and it is why we want to make sure that business is able to maximise the opportunities that are presented by such a significant economic and social reform.

We have a whole series of programs throughout the government, a network of industry innovation councils and supplier advocates to help Australian firms to create and secure the jobs for the future. We want to ensure that we have the transformational strategies in place to ensure that workers in this country have a real stake in the future. We will not turn our back on the future, we will not seek to undermine jobs or seek to destroy business confidence in this country. (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr. Can the minister inform the Senate what modelling the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has undertaken to determine the impact on jobs in the manufacturing sector of the government’s new carbon tax?

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. The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has not undertaken modelling. What we have done is rely upon the advice from those central agencies that have undertaken the modelling. You know that, Senator. What we have done is to ensure that we have a policy framework in place to see real investment—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on the question of relevance. The question was: what modelling has the department undertaken? The question has been entirely answered in the first sentence. The question having been entirely answered in the first sentence, nothing more can be relevant.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on the point of order. I do not know whether Senator Brandis is under threat inside the Liberal Party, but his points of order have got more ridiculous as the weeks go on. The ministers in this chamber have been called upon by Senator Brandis in incessant points of order to be directly relevant. Senator Carr immediately responded directly to the question, and was proceeding to answer the question more fully when Senator Brandis jumped to his feet and, unable to have his normal point of order, he had to try to think of another one which was, ‘Oh, he’s already answered the question’. What nonsense, Mr President! If Senator Brandis is threatened inside the Liberal Party, he should deal with it there rather than try to boost his credentials by standing up in this place and taking ridiculous points of order.

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

There is no point of order. There is a minute and 39 seconds remaining. I am listening to the answer that the minister has given and I believe the minister is addressing the matter in respect of the standing orders.

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

What the government has determined is that it is absolutely critical to the future wellbeing of the Australian people that we are able to transform this economy to meet the enormous challenges of climate change. To do so we are prepared to work closely with the business community, and it is very important that we work with the community at large. That is why we have established the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change and that is why we have established the non-government organisations committee—to ensure that an appropriate policy framework is in place to protect the future for this country.

Those opposite are seeking to turn their backs on the future. They want to engage in the slur and innuendo of a program which, essentially, is equipping them to face up to the problems of the 1960s. We have now got to deal with a situation in the 21st century. Those opposite have failed to recognise their responsibilities to the future of this country and to the people of this country to ensure that we are able to protect the living standards of the Australian people.

Pretending that these things will just go away is not an answer. Pretending that we do not have to act on these issues is not an answer. We are in the business of ensuring that we get the investment in place to transform this economy to deal with the challenges of a low-carbon economy. The policies that are being pursued by this government are absolutely in keeping with ensuring that jobs for the future are protected and that economic opportunities for Australians are advanced. Pretending that these problems will go away is a terrible mistake. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. What formal input, if any, have you had as minister into the deliberations of the government’s climate change committee, and what kind of information has your office and your department specifically been asked to provide to the committee on the impact on industry of the carbon tax?

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

Thank you, Senator. I am intimately involved in the deliberations of the government in this policy. The whole-of-government processes which apply to a matter such as this also apply to the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. I am very pleased to be part of that process, ensuring the future prosperity of this nation. Any suggestions to the contrary are a terrible mistake—again. You are trying to drum up fear and you are trying to suggest things about that, whether that be cabinet processes or a number of other claims that are being made which are based on totally inaccurate information. I am sorry for you, Senator. Perhaps you should rely on more than the Australian; you may find that we are actually able to have a more informed debate.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Perhaps we can go to the Financial Review then, Minister. Is not BlueScope Steel CEO Paul O’Malley correct when he says that manufacturing policy is now being directed by members of the government who show complete ignorance, do not want to listen, are engaged in economic vandalism and do not care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia?

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

I have had conversations with Mr O’Malley on numerous occasions. He is a member of our Steel Industry Innovation Council and he is a member of the business roundtable. So Mr O’Malley has an opportunity to put forward the views of BlueScope. I have also asked him to take the views of the Future Manufacturing Industry Innovation Council to that business roundtable. He is expressing his views about the need to ensure that there is a balanced approach to the policy framework that is being presented.

There is an ongoing public debate about what the level of assistance should be to ensure that manufacturing can make the necessary transition to a low-carbon economy. He is entitled to put that view; there will others who will put different views. At the end of the day, this is a proper debate that this country should have. It is a pity that you are not part of it. Your approach is to essentially turn your back on the welfare of the people of this country. (Time expired)

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

Senator Cormann interjecting—

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

I will come down to Wollongong to debate climate change with you any day.

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

Senator Cameron and Senator Cormann, the time for debate is post question time. Senator Ludlam is waiting to ask a question.