Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. Does the minister accept the finding of the Productivity Commission that an ETS or carbon tax will:

... directly increase product costs according to their emissions intensity with these costs being passed on to consumers and user industries.

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

I am very pleased that at least some in the opposition have read some parts of the Productivity Commission report. If they had read it properly they would know that one of the things the commission says is that putting in place a carbon price is the most efficient way to ensure that an economy reduces its emissions. In fact, it is a report which shows the weakness of the coalition's policy—a policy which is all about taking money from taxpayers, giving it to polluters and hoping that there might be some change in behaviour. That is, as Mr Turnbull has said, a recipe for fiscal irresponsibility. This government has made its approach very clear. It is an approach which we put into this parliament on a number of occasions in the last term. We want to put a price on carbon because that is the most economically sensible way to reduce Australia's emissions and to ensure that we can build the clean economy of the future.

In terms of price impacts, the senator is aware and the government has been upfront about the fact that there are price impacts from charging for something which is currently free. What is currently free is the ability to pollute; and, as long as that is free, companies will continue to do it. The government has made it clear that the revenue that is received through the carbon price being levied on the big polluters will be returned to Australian households and to Australian businesses to ensure that the adjustment can be made to a cleaner energy economy.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister confirm that the prices of Australian produced goods will increase more than those of imported goods under Labor's carbon tax? Isn't this policy, as the managing director of Coca-Cola Amatil said recently, 'discriminatory because it advantages imported goods'?

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

I was listening to a speech once in this chamber from a senator from South Australia who argued for a carbon price. He looked remarkably like the gentleman who just asked me a question. It is quite extraordinary, isn't it, the way in which those on the other side—who once believed that climate change is real and once believed in an economically rational approach to dealing with it—now come into this place and ask questions like that. Here is another one—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on the issue of direct relevance. The minister was asked about the differential impact of a carbon price on domestically produced and imported goods. She is more than halfway through her answer and she has engaged in nothing but ritualistic abuse of the questioner. She has not approached the question. She has not been relevant, let alone directly relevant.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

There is no point of order.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order on both sides! Listening to some of the answers today has been difficult because of the constant interjections from both sides. It will help the conduct of question time and my capacity to hear the answers fully if those people who are interjecting cease their interjections. The interjections sometimes overtake the question that has been asked. Senator Wong, you have 24 seconds remaining to address the question that you were asked by Senator Birmingham as a supplementary question.

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

What Senator Birmingham is asserting is essentially that no-one else is doing anything. That is essentially what he is asserting, and we know that that is wrong; we know that that is not true. We know that a price on carbon has existed in Europe since 2005. We know that the United States is now investing more in clean energy than in conventional sources. We know the action that China is taking, we know that India is taxing coal, but those on the other side persist in perpetuating a myth. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. With the Productivity Commission confirming that, despite what the minister says, no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS, will the minister explain why Labor wants to continue with a policy that will disadvantage Australian businesses, hurt Australian households and have no guaranteed environmental benefits?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

All right—

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

Simon, why did you backflip?

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

Senator Cameron! I call Senator Wong.

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

We continue this policy for many of the same reasons that the former Prime Minister, John Howard, went to the 2007 election with a promise to put a price on carbon. We continue this policy for many of the same reasons that his hand-picked task group, led by Peter Shergold, recommended an emissions trading scheme as the most economically efficient way to reduce pollution and to tackle climate change.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

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

Senator Wong, resume your seat. Senator Abetz and Senator Conroy: your exchange across the chamber might suit yourselves but it makes it very difficult for me to listen to Senator Wong. Senator Wong, continue.

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

For all of those reasons, Mr President, and because we on this side believe that it is our responsibility to do something about climate change. We do not believe it is responsible for us to sit here in the Commonwealth parliament and say: 'This is too hard. We don't want to do this. We'll ignore all of the risks, economic and environmental, that scientists have given this parliament time and time again.' We believe that it is the responsible and right thing to do.

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

My question goes to—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Brown, resume your seat. As long as those exchanges across the chamber are taking place, it makes it difficult for me to hear your question. That is not fair to you. You are entitled to be heard in silence.

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

It is not fair to you either, Mr President. My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. I refer to the full-page ad in today's Sydney Morning Herald and other entities by the Australian Coal Association, which might more readily be called the Overseas Owned Coal Association. I ask the minister: is such advertising tax deductible? If so, does the government know how many thousands of dollars of this advertising is coming out of taxpayers' pockets without their warrant?

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

Firstly, in relation to the tax question, obviously whether or not this or any other expense is deductible obviously depends on the taxpayer's particular circumstances and the details of the expense made, so I am not sure I would be in a position to make any definitive statement about the extent to which these sorts of expenditures would in fact be deductible. If I can find any further advice from the Treasurer on this issue, I will provide that. But it would depend on the circumstances of the company and the expenditure made. I am not sure I can provide much more information to Senator Brown. It is true that companies do, under Australia's taxation laws, have the ability to deduct certain expenses—

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

What about The Wilderness Society ads?

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

I am in a position to make a comment about that either, Senator Abetz. I would say that this government, unlike some governments in the past, is not in the habit of trying to stifle free speech, even when we do not agree with it.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer again to the advertisement, which is based on the premise that a carbon price will make no difference to global greenhouse gas emissions. I ask the minister: is that not one whopping premeditated lie which ought to be contested?

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

I think both—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I refer to Senator Brown's position that it was a 'whopping lie'; is that parliamentary? I think you should call it—

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

It is all right, Senator Boswell. The question stands.

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

Rather than getting into a debate about what may or may not be in a particular advertisement, I will just make this point. The proposition that there is no point in pointing in place a carbon price has been made endlessly in this place by Senator Joyce and others. I am on record over quite a number of hours and days in the context of previous climate change debates answering that. It is an interesting proposition because what it essentially says is, 'We might think climate change is real, but everyone else should fix it.' If you say that we do not need to do anything in Australia, you are essentially saying that this might be a problem but other people have to deal with it. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is coal not the chief villain responsible for greenhouse gas emissions which are creating dangerous climate change, threatening 128,000 jobs in the Murray-Darling Basin and 67,000 jobs on the Great Barrier Reef—including a $6 billion economy there which puts its money back into the Australian economy, unlike the foreign owned coal industry?

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

Obviously those are not words that I would use, but the senator is entitled to use them. The government has always recognised the importance of the coal industry; we also recognise the importance of climate change. We have been working on an economically responsible way to deal with climate change, an issue that we understand is not going to go away, no matter how much those on the other side might rail against it. Our view is that it is an economically sensible approach to ensure we put a price on carbon, that we utilise the revenue from that price to assist Australians to adjust to the change as we move to a low-carbon economy.