Senator WONG (Minister for Climate Change and Water) (11:08 AM) —I will endeavour to respond to a number of the propositions that have been brought, including Senator Joyce’s question. I will start by suggesting that the debate today and yesterday really demonstrates the lack of wisdom in the opposition, the Greens and the Independents in voting against the CPRS legislation even going in committee. Essentially, much of the debate has been about the CPRS. We could have had this debate, but you shut down debate because you did not want to debate it. As parliamentarians, many of the contributions in this debate have really dealt with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, something you did not want to debate in committee. Senator Boswell said, ‘People took us at our word.’ Whilst I disagree with a lot of Senator Boswell’s policies, I think that is something he cares about. I would suggest to him he should care about it in relation to an emissions trading scheme. That was your policy. That was your policy before the last election.

Senator Boswell —No-one invested money in it, though!

Senator WONG —So a policy is able to be given away if no-one acts upon it? Is that the proposition, Senator Boswell? I mean, really. You went to the Australian people supporting an emissions trading scheme and your party has demonstrated—

Senator Abetz —But not your scheme.

Senator WONG —I will take that interjection. Senator Abetz said, ‘Not your scheme.’ I do not think Senator Joyce has made that clear. He just says, ‘No, no, no, no, no, full stop’ to an emissions trading scheme. Did no-one in your party room or in your government actually talk to the National Party when you made that election promise? Is that what happened?

Can I suggest that some of the questions—and I do not want to labour this too much—from the chamber about things like the Climate Change Action Fund and the household compensation package demonstrate just how not seriously some senators in this debate have taken their responsibility as parliamentarians. You have come into this debate and asked the government questions about policy that has been on the books for over eight months. It was published and announced by the Prime Minister. Yet you still know so little about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that you are asking whether we have a household compensation package, which has been publicised, and whether we have a Climate Change Action Fund, which has been on the books and talked about and discussed not only in the white paper but in many speeches. It is known to many industry groups. That really demonstrates that you voted against the CPRS without considering the detail at all. That really demonstrates that the coalition’s position on the CPRS is driven by very blind ideology, not by analysis of the policy. I hope that changes. I hope that those in the coalition who care about action on climate change—

Senator Abetz —Why can’t you negotiate on the CPRS like you can on renewables?

Senator WONG —I will take that interjection, Senator Abetz. He asked why I could not negotiate on the CPRS like we did on renewables. It is because you came to us with your propositions. You came to us with a position. You came to us with amendments. You did not and you have not come to us—

Senator Abetz —You have said all along, ‘No negotiation.’

Senator WONG —You have not come to us with a position supported by your party room when it comes to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The more you interject on this, Senator, and thrash around, the more you demonstrate the ridiculous position that the coalition has been in when it comes to action on climate change. You cannot even put forward amendments on a policy that is of such national importance. You cannot even do that.

On the Climate Change Action Fund, Senator Joyce, you asked about the revenue source. The revenue source is the auction revenue from the permits under the CPRS. My recollection is that there is some budget funding in the 2010-11 year but it is balanced over the forward estimates. All of those details were laid out first in the white paper released in December and were indicated in the budget papers released in May. If you want a Climate Change Action Fund, the source of the revenue is CPRS revenue—the scheme you have voted against.

Senator Abetz said, ‘If this is not the fairest system, what is?’ Senator Abetz, it is the one you have supported. We are very pleased that you are supporting that. I will just remind you again of what you signed up for. The government will replicate the industry assistance provisions from the CPRS for the purpose of the RET. The government will use the same eligibility thresholds under the CPRS as for the RET. A separate eligibility assessment process for activities that will be provided partial exemption under the RET will not be necessary. As CPRS eligibility assessments are finalised, these will be used as the basis to determine eligibility under the RET and prepare appropriate regulations. It is a pity you were not briefed sufficiently, Senator Abetz. It is a fairer system—

Senator Abetz —We didn’t sign up to this for food manufacturing.

Senator WONG —I know you are thrashing about.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hurley)—Order!

Senator WONG —Thank you.

Senator Abetz —You cannot rewrite history.

Senator WONG —The fairer system is the system the government has been proposing all along, which is the one the coalition has signed up for. I have explained—

Senator Abetz —We didn’t.

Senator WONG —Would you like me to read it back at you again, Senator?

Senator Abetz —We told you at all times we would move an amendment on food processing.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Wong, I would ask you not to respond to interjections. Senator Abetz, I would ask you to maintain order and not interject.

Senator WONG —You can always tell when Senator Abetz is getting sensitive. He interjects on a machinegun basis. He does not stop talking and starts to thrash around like a fish on a hook. The fairer system is the one that the coalition has agreed to, which is the activity based assistance on the basis of emissions intensity that the government has put out under the CPRS, which the coalition is now agreeing to utilise in relation to the renewable energy target. I have gone through already why we do not support this amendment. I do not propose to traverse that again. If we are able to proceed with voting on this particular set of amendments, that would be good. We have three more amendments after this before we are able to vote on the legislation.