Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, now that the laughing and ridicule regarding the previous question has concluded—

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

No, there is no need to preface questions like that.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr President, my question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Evans. Will the minister state clearly, once and for all, how much more Australian families will end up paying for electricity under the new Labor-Greens carbon tax?

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

Mr President, I try to treat all senators with respect when they ask questions but, quite frankly, this is just another stunt. There is no genuine interest from the opposition in engaging in a major public policy challenge. All we have is the attempt to run out and say: ‘The world’s going to end. Petrol’s going to go up. Electricity’s going to go up. It’s all too hard. Let’s pretend there’s no problem. Let’s forget what we’ve said about climate change since John Howard recognised the problem in 2007.’

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. This minister was asked a very specific question. He has not even addressed it after a considerable amount of time; all he has done is berated the questioner and told the questioner how he should ask questions. Could you please draw his attention to the question and ask him to be directly relevant to it.

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

Mr President, we now have a point of order taken without even pointing out what the subject matter or the issue was. All that the opposition have now said is, ‘We rise to take a point of order; we rise on whether it’s directly relevant or not,’ without even justifying the position that they have put. It is a frivolous point of order from the opposition on this issue, without their actually describing what is or is not directly relevant. The opposition jump up, say, ‘The minister is not being directly relevant,’ and sit down. On that basis, they should remain seated. There is no point of order. It has not been raised. The minister has been answering the question asked.

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

Mr President, on the point of order—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Wait a minute, Senator Brandis; you will get the call. I need silence on both sides so that Senator Brandis can be recognised. Senator Brandis.

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

Mr President, I know the minister has a minute and 26 seconds to go, in which maybe he might come to the question, and I know that you have made allowance for prologue and preamble in answers, but the fact is that he was asked by how much electricity prices would rise and nothing he has said is even remotely relevant to that issue. That is the point that Senator Macdonald was trying to make when he took the point of order, and his point of order, with respect, is right. If it is not remotely relevant, how can it be directly relevant?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Wait a minute, Senator Conroy. When there is silence, we will proceed. Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: Senator Macdonald was unable to identify what the point of order was. He refused to acknowledge what the question actually was. He refused to acknowledge the preamble—all of the sledging that went on in the first part of the question—and just airbrushed it away: it did not happen. Unfortunately, the question contained a whole range of things, assertions and implications, that Senator Macdonald is simply seeking to ignore to waste the time of this chamber to take another frivolous point of order, and it should be dismissed out of hand.

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

On both sides: I was certainly not helped at the start of the question by the preamble to the question, but then I was certainly not helped by some of the noise that followed in the response. It makes it very difficult up here to hear some of the responses that are coming forth. The minister has, as you rightly pointed out, one minute 26 seconds. I do not set aside part of the time that is allowed for the answer, that being two minutes, for preamble or prologue; I have never said that. I have never stated that from the chair as such. The standing orders dictate that there is a two-minute time limit in which to answer the question. The minister, though, has the responsibility in answering the question to respond in accordance with the standing orders and to be directly relevant to the question that has been asked. I acknowledge that, but I do not accept that there has been a time set aside for prologue or preamble.

I do listen carefully to what the ministers are saying. Sometimes the ministers’ responses are drowned out by calling from both sides of the chamber—and I am not picking on one side or the other there—and it makes it very difficult to pick up the full answer that is being given. On this occasion, I draw the minister’s attention to the fact that there is still one minute 26 seconds remaining in which to answer the question. It would assist the chair if, when people are asking questions, the banter that goes on is ceased. I do understand that people want to let off a bit of steam from time to time and I am fairly tolerant about that. Minister, you have one minute and 26 seconds remaining to answer the question.

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

Thank you, Mr President. This is a serious public policy debate, and we need to deal with the issues seriously, not pull stunts and not try to pretend that these are not serious issues that need to be addressed. Imposing a price on carbon will increase the cost of certain goods and services in the community. The architecture of the scheme that we finally settle on has not yet been determined. We have a process by which we are trying to get in place a price on carbon. There are a whole range of issues that need to be determined as we move forward. The rest of the parliament, apart from the Liberal and National parties, are intent on trying to engage in that debate, trying to be serious about the challenges. They are trying to grapple with this challenge. I remind people that Prime Minister Howard recognised this back in 2007. He said:

Significantly reducing emissions will mean higher costs for businesses and households, there is no escaping that and anyone who pretends to do otherwise is not a serious participant in this hugely important public policy debate.

I urge senators like Senator Barnett to listen to what Prime Minister Howard had to say about that. His running around and saying that the world is going to end et cetera is not a constructive contribution to the debate. (Time expired)

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, now that the minister has failed to answer that question, I have a supplementary question. Will the minister guarantee that Australian families will not end up paying at least $300 a year for electricity under the new Labor-Greens tax?

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

What we know is that the Liberal Party are running around with different scare campaigns—one day I think Mr Hunt was saying it is $1,000, then $500, now it is $300. Quite frankly, no determination has been made about the price to be put on carbon—nor, therefore, the ramifications that flow from that. What we have made clear is that any revenue raised by this government in applying the carbon tax will be used to try and offset the impact on households and businesses, to mitigate the impact on them. That is the approach we took when we tried to introduce the CPRS. It is a consistent approach in trying to ensure equity for Australian families while we try and drive a fundamental change in the Australian economy. It is a fundamental change. It is a major reform. It is serious. It is difficult. But it is worth doing.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the Prime Minister has been so happy to break her promise to the Australian people about having a carbon tax, just to keep the Greens happy, how can they trust that the government will not let the Greens get their way and impose spiralling electricity prices on Australian families?

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

When the tactics committee writes those questions for Senator Barnett, he ought to think more carefully about it. It does him no credit. He did not listen to the answer.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

It is a question of whether you are interested in petty point-scoring, which may well go down well in Liberal Party council meetings. It is a reflection again that you fail to seriously engage with the big public policy question facing us. These are serious issues. They are difficult issues. They are issues the Liberal Party chose to engage with in the last parliament, before the reactionary forces got the numbers and forced Malcolm Turnbull out—and, as a result, you walked away. But now you have walked away completely from being serious players in the major challenges confronting this economy and our climate—and, quite frankly, it does you no credit. We have serious issues that need to be addressed, and I urge members of parliament to treat them seriously. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.