Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer to today's Deloitte's modelling commissioned by the Victorian state government which reveals that in 2015 the carbon tax will cost 23,000 jobs in Victoria. As the Treasury has not modelled the impact of carbon tax on employment in individual states and, in fact, assumes the carbon tax will have no impact on jobs in the long run, how can you dispute these figures?

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! I remind the Senate the time for debating this issue is after three o'clock.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Senator Cormann! I have just reminded senators about the time to debate the issue.

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

I thank the senator for his question and for the opportunity to talk about the way in which the Premier of Victoria has quite clearly jumped aboard Mr Tony Abbott's scare campaign when it comes to climate change. This is the Premier who is on the public record in October 2008 saying 'we support an emissions capping and trading scheme as the least costly way of responding to global warming'. Yet another in the conga line of hypocrites in the Liberal Party on this issue—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! When we have silence on both sides we will proceed.

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

The extent to which this was a politically motivated exercise is really demonstrated by the fact that the report does not actually include the assistance packages within the government's Clean Energy Future package. It does not actually include the crucial assistance measures that the government has put in place. What an extraordinary proposition: you throw together some modelling, a month after the release of the carbon package, the Clean Energy Future package, to enable you to jump aboard Mr Abbott's scare campaign in order to be able to make false claims ahead of the COAG meeting—all this from a Premier who once supported a price on carbon! It is the case also that not only did the Victorian government fail to include the totality of the assistance measures to support industry and to support jobs in the context of pricing carbon; there is also quite a deliberate attempt to mislead in terms of the outcomes, which was repeated in the senator's question. I look forward to responding to that. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr president, I ask a supplementary question. I look forward to your answer, Senator Wong. Given that you could not explain how you dispute the figure of 23,000 job losses, Minister, can you please inform the Senate of what compensation will be paid to the tens of thousands of Australians whose jobs will be lost and destroyed in coming years if this carbon tax goes ahead, particularly those in my state of Victoria, which is going to be hit first and hardest by your carbon tax?

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

In relation to the assertion about jobs to be lost, I would make the point that, in fact, the modelling shows employment in Victoria actually growing over the period. The reference to 23,000 jobs is a change from the reference case figure, not an actual change in employment, which is clearly not what the senator put in his question. Mr President, if the senator wants to get into an argument about modelling, I tell you what: I would back the Australian Treasury, who used to advise Mr Costello, who is one of the good senator's great heroes, in relation to the budget, in relation to the budget forecasts and in relation to the Intergenerational report, all of which show employment continues to grow under a carbon price—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Wong, I know there is limited time but I will give you time to finish. I draw to the attention of senators that constant interject­ion is completely disorderly. The minister is entitled to be heard in silence. Minister, you have four seconds remaining. Is there any­thing further?

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

No, Mr President.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I am sure that the workers at Latrobe Valley will love their new jobs as carbon cops. Minister, in the face of continuing uncertainty in the international economy and the Australian one, how can the government proceed with this job-destroying carbon tax?

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

We will proceed with this policy because it is about the long-term strength of the Australian economy and because you cannot be a first-rate economy in years to come unless you move to cleaner energy, unless you are a clean-energy economy. That is why so many nations of the world are putting so much investment into clean energy, into generating energy more efficiently and more cleanly and into industrial and other processes becoming more energy efficient. The reality is the world is increasingly paying a higher premium for low-carbon goods and services, for clean-energy goods and services, and we on this side want to make sure Australians are positioned to take advantage of those opportunities. The difference is those on this side are prepared to look to the future and those on that side simply want to run a scare campaign today.