Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. According to modelling conducted by the government, can the minister advise the Senate how many Australian households will be worse off under its carbon tax?

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

The government has released a great deal of detail about the Household Assistance Package, which includes a very substantial tax reform package that will increase the tax-free threshold and involve a tax reduction for all Australians earning under $80,000 a year. That is a very sub­stantial and important tax reform package which obviously has good participation consequences as well. The Prime Minister has also indicated that nine out of 10 house­holds will receive some assistance through tax cuts or payment increases and almost six million households will get tax cuts or increased payments that cover their entire average price impact. Over four million Australian households will get an extra buffer with assistance that is at least 20 per cent more than the expected average price impact.

We have been clear that there are some people who will not be assisted. We have been clear and upfront about that. The question that is never answered by the other side is just how much tax they will impose on Australian families to pay for their direct action policy which is a complete black hole.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Wong, please wait a minute. Order!

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 question was very narrow and specific. We just want to know a number—how many. The minister has not come close to addressing that.

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

Mr President, again we hear from the opposition, who take a point of order and want a specific question answered in a particular way. Of course, it is not within—

Opposition senators interjecting—

If you could allow me to finish. I know it is Thursday and you all want to go home.

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

Senator Ludwig, please resume your seat. It might be easier, Senator Ludwig, if we have a bit of silence.

Opposition senators interjecting—

You plead guilty. I have a plea of guilty on my left.

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

Their question tries to suggest what that specific answer is. It is not an argument to take a point of order to say the answer is not being directly relevant. The minister in answering the question, while being directly relevant to the question, is entitled to answer the question in the way that is appropriate to provide the information in a directly relevant way, but not to necess­arily give an answer that you have suggested you want. That is completely out of order and there is no point of order.

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

I have repeatedly said from the chair that I cannot tell a minister how to answer the question. The minister has 26 seconds remaining to answer the question and I draw the minister's attention to the question. I cannot tell or instruct the minister how to answer the question.

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

I think I answered in the first part of the answer that nine out of 10 households will receive some assistance. That obviously leaves one out of 10 house­holds who will not be receiving assistance. I would like to point out to the opposition and to the chamber this: the opposition is going to have to go the election with a promise to claw back a pension increase and to impose higher income taxes because they opposed this package. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the finance minister, I would have thought it would have been a pretty simple question to give a figure to.

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 a point of order: it is becoming increasingly the practice of opposition senators to respond to the first answer they receive by running a commentary, often derogatory, before asking the next question. I draw your attention to the increasing practice that has been employed. If they want to have a debate, we are happy to have a debate, but question time is for the asking of questions and the answering of them. The practice is not in accordance with the standing orders, not a good development for the operation of question time. I would ask you to have a look at whether it is in order for senators to continually run commentary rather than just ask the supplementary question.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: the difficulty the chair has is simply this, if the chair cannot direct the minister how to answer the question, it will be also difficult for the chair to direct how a question ought to be asked.

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

I have already drawn to the attention of the Senate on numerous occasions the fact that it should be a question that is asked. There should be no commentary at the start.

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

Without the commentary. That is your difficulty, Mr President.

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

I have no difficulty in this whatsoever.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the finance minister aware of how many self-funded retirees will be worse off under the govern­ment's carbon tax?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

None, that is easy.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

When the Senate is ready we will proceed with question time.

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

The way in which the government has structured assistance for self-funded retirees is to link it to eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. Self-funded retirees will receive the same dollar amount as those on the aged pension, which would be $338 per annum for singles earning up to $50,000 and $510 per annum for couples combined earning up to $80,000. I would again make the point the assistance I am outlining is the assistance the opposition is going to be clawing back.

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

How many will be worse off?

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

Senator Abetz, you ask how many will be worse off. They will all be worse off under your policy because you are taking it all back! Increases in pensions, increases in the assistance to self-funded retirees, increases to family tax benefit and lifting the tax free threshold—you are clawing it all back. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Does the minister agree with Senator Feeney's comments that no self-funded retirees will be worse off under the government's carbon tax?

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

Mr President, I have answered the question about the eligibility for assistance for self-funded retirees.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! I draw the attention of senators on both sides to the fact that question time will not proceed until there is silence.

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

There are a lot of things said in this chamber and I obviously have not heard everything that every senator has said in this debate. What I can say is that I have outlined in my previous answer the assistance the government is providing to self-funded retirees who receive the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.

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 relevance: everyone in the Senate heard Senator Feeney interject, in response to the question, that the answer was none. The supplementary question merely asks the minister whether she agrees with what Senator Feeney said. Nothing she has said in her answer to the supplementary question is relevant to the issue of whether she agrees with Senator Feeney's assertion that the answer is none.

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

There is no point of order. Not everyone in the Senate heard Senator Feeney's comment. Let me assure you, Senator, I did not hear the comment because of the noise that was coming from my left, so you cannot make the accusation that everyone heard the comment that was made. If silence were maintained in this chamber, then there may well be an opportunity for me to hear everything that goes on. But it is very difficult sometimes, and I can assure you I did not hear any comment. If others did, I certainly did not, and whether it was because of the noise that came from either side of this place, I cannot tell you.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: perhaps Senator Feeney could clarify the situation so we are not in this difficult situation.

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

That is not a point of order. Senator Marshall, resume your seat; we are still taking points of order. Senator Abetz.

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

Thank you, Mr President.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Senator Abetz, this highlights the difficulty—on both sides. You were on your feet, and there were people on your side who were making it very difficult for me to hear you, then there were people who came in from my right who made it equally difficult. You, like any other senator when they are on their feet in this place, are entitled to be heard, and I am going to see that that happens. Senator Abetz, you are entitled to be heard in silence, as is the minister when they are on their feet as well.

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

Thank you, Mr President. Sessional orders require that a minister be directly relevant to the question that was asked. With great respect, whether or not you or any other senator heard what Senator Feeney clearly interjected—whether it was heard or not—is irrelevant to the question that was asked; namely, whether or not the minister agrees with Senator Feeney, who said that no self-funded retiree would be worse off, and she needs to answer that question.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order!

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

Mr President, on the point of order—

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Wait a minute, Senator Evans. I know it is Thursday. I know people are a little bit excited on both sides. But it makes it very difficult when people on both sides are interjecting.

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

Mr President, the question from Senator Fierravanti-Wells went to the compensation arrangements for self-funded retirees under the government's climate change plans. The minister, Senator Wong, has been directly on the topic in trying to provide the Senate with information about the nature of that compensation package and how the implementation of a carbon price would impact on that group of Australians, so there is no point of order.

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

Senator Wong, you have 22 seconds remaining to answer the question.

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

I am asked if I agree. I certainly agree with Senator Faulkner's assessment of Senator Abetz, but I am sure the senator will not want me to repeat that! I would again say—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Right. Absolutely on point he was, Senator Abetz.

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

Senator Wong, address your comments to the chair.

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

Thank you, Mr President. I have referred to the government's linking of the assistance for self-funded retirees to the eligibility for the Common­wealth seniors healthcare card. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually have a sensible question for—

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

No need to preface the question!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr. Given the unprecedented rise of the Australian dollar and the fears that it has created for manufacturing, can the minister outline to the Senate what the government is doing to give workers confidence in the future?

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

I thank Senator Marshall for his question and his concern, a concern which is matched by the gravity of the situation that we confront today. The Australian economy is experiencing the biggest structural change in a generation, driven largely by the high dollar. The resources boom is creating a net benefit for our economy; however, it is posing serious challenges for other trade exposed sections of the economy, and firms in those sectors are responding through innovation.

Through the wailing that we have heard from the other side, their crocodile tears about manufacturing—a recently discovered concern, I might add—you would have thought by now we would have heard some policy statement from them on how they believe we should be able to help manufacturers, tourism or education providers deal with a 45 per cent increase in the movement of the exchange rate.

We are seeing considerable challenges facing our manufacturers, and we know that this is a reality that is being faced in a very difficult and sometimes painful and unavoidable transition period that is ahead of us. However, there are reasons for optimism about our ability to navigate this difficult period. As a country, we have the opportunity to choose the future we want, and we have to be prepared, as a country, to fight for it. We know there are many, many things in this country that are going well for us. In fact, we have a world-class university system. We have a world-class research system. We have well-educated people. We have advanced technical skills. We have advanced infrastructure. We have a long history of great inventions. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister have a view of the claims made by the Liberals in Victoria and repeated by Senator Ryan today that the carbon price will rip 23,000 jobs from the state's economy?

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

Mr Baillieu's claims, which are based on some highly dubious modelling, take no account whatsoever of the support measures that are included in the Clean Energy Future package. His latest claims are in fact in very, very sharp contrast to the Premier's statements to the Victorian parliament, where he actually supported an emissions trading scheme. It is further evidence of the extraordinary hypocrisy within the Liberal Party on the question of blue-collar jobs, and we all know that that hypocrisy is revealed for anyone who cares to see. That party has only one contribution when it comes to manufacturing workers' jobs—that is, making it easier to sack them. That is what the policy of the Liberal Party is about. We know that the Treasury modelling has predicted that the Victorian economy will grow by 30 per cent by 2020 and by 160 per cent by 2050. We are on the— (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. What is the role of science and research in the transformation of the Australian economy?

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

Research institutions are very much at the forefront, the front line, of the transformation that is occurring. That is something that innovative companies have known for a long time. Companies like global aeronautics giant Boeing have come to parliament today to showcase what Australian research can offer. Boeing has worked with the CSIRO in Australia for more than 22 years on a vast array of projects, ranging from sustainable aviation fuels to fire retardants to aircraft mainten­ance and management to the development of new materials. In May this year the company recognised CSIRO as the supplier of the year in its global awards ceremony. That is an award based on an assessment of 17,500 suppliers to Boeing from around the globe. This is a partnership which is vital for Boeing's ongoing development and invest­ment in this country. Boeing is actually putting people on the payroll as a result of the capacity to cash in on these relationships. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. Given the government's rhetoric on the carbon tax does not mention its impact on the international competitiveness of our primary producers, who have long been productivity leaders and whose businesses will be hit hard by the flow-on effects of the tax, especially in electricity prices, can the minister indicate what modelling if any the government has commissioned to estimate the impact of the carbon tax on farm profit­ability and the export of our primary products?

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

Treasury have done modelling and that has been released. I am sure those opposite are aware of that. Agri­cultural industries are beneficiaries under the carbon price. They will be excluded from the carbon price. They will also be able, when the legislation is allowed to pass, to participate in many opportunities to abate carbon. This is an agricultural industry which will be able to partake in co-benefits. Those co-benefits are in reducing salinity and improving the environment while also looking for ways to sequester carbon, to reduce their carbon footprint and also to manage and develop the environment, as they have been doing for many years, and to find an income stream from it.

The benefits, of course, do not stop there. The benefits do not stay within the agricultural portfolio but go to fisheries and forestry. Within the agricultural portfolio the on-farm use of fuels will have a tax credit, and that applies in both fisheries and forestry. This will allow these industries to develop to ensure that they remain competi­tive in a global sense. In terms of their input prices, which is an issue which always gets raised, if you look at the price setting of fertilisers it is an internationally set price. The farming community understand that—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How did their fertiliser get to the farm? On a truck!

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

It is very hard when you get screeching from the opposition.

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

Senator Ludwig, just ignore the interjection. It is disorderly.

An opposition senator: It's sexist!

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

'Screeching' is not sexist. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the Australian farmers are price takers in fiercely competitive global food and fibre markets where none of our competitors face the carbon tax that our farmers face, is it not the reality that the government's carbon tax will cut deeply into farm incomes, as has been detailed by the Australian Farm Institute?

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

(Queensland—) (): No. This government does not agree with the underlying assumption of that question. The oppor­tunities for the agricultural industry, for the forestry industry and for the fisheries industry are there under a carbon price. The agricultural industry will be able to contribute to a clean energy future. They will be able to continue by participating in sequestering carbon, by participating in the benefits that flow from the Clean Energy Future program. There is also $1.7 billion available to assist the industry. In addition, NRMs, natural resource managers, are working right across Australia as we speak today in workshops, going out into agricultural areas to explain the benefits that will come with a price on carbon. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that from 2014 the govern­ment intends to impose a carbon tax on heavy road transport starting at 6c a litre, exacerbating the huge cost increases that will hit Australian farmers as a result of the carbon tax, can the minister confirm whether the government will abandon the changes to the fuel tax credit scheme, which is just another example of an underhanded attempt to bring agriculture into the carbon tax net?

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

What we have done is allow a lead time for the transport industry. Like many other industries, there is a lead time for them to develop alternative and more efficient ways of dealing with this. But this government is determined to ensure that we have a clean energy future, that we put a price on carbon, that we do reduce our car­bon emissions. The agricultural industry and a range of industries will benefit signifi­cantly from this package, because what we intend to do when the Senate passes this legislation is create opportunities in both reducing and sequestering carbon. But more importantly—

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

On a point of order, Mr President: the question clearly asks whether they are going to abandon the fuel tax proposed for 1 July 2014 on the transport industry, which has been called a death tax by the Transport Workers Union. That is the question. Could the minister answer it directly, please.

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: far be it from me to disagree with my good friend, the senator down there, but he did not come close to articulating the question!

Government senators: Wacka.

I did not want to say Wacka.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my point of order goes to the proper way of referring to my colleague. Minister Conroy, it is Senator Williams, not 'senator down there'. 'Senator down there' could be any of us or the whole lot of us. Senator out there—that is you, Senator Conroy!

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

There is no point of order. Senator Conroy, have you finished?

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

Yes, I have finished. There was no point of order, effectively.

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

Senator Ludwig now has 15 seconds remaining to answer the question.

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

I was answering the second supplementary question and did go to the benefits and how the industries were dealing with this—I was not going to take that point of order. More important, what we are looking for— (Time expired)