Download Fragment

Thursday, 13 October 2011
Page: 7358

Carbon Pricing

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:13): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Senator Wong. I refer Senator Wong to answers she gave to questions about the carbon tax on Tuesday and Wednesday this week, where she referred to Treasury modelling to support her various assertions. Will the minister confirm that the models used by Treasury for its carbon tax modelling—ABARES' model, the GTEM; and Monash University's model, the MMRF model—and all other relevant parameters, frameworks and assumptions used by Treasury have not been made public to the extent necessary to enable third parties to independently scrutinise that Treasury modelling?

Is the minister aware that, in contrast, when the former coalition government asked the Productivity Commission to assess the National Reform Agenda it ensured that the MMRF model used by the commission was made fully available so that others could independently scrutinise all the modelling scenarios? Why is this government not doing the same?

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:15): I thank Senator Cormann for his question, which can best be summarised as him saying to us, 'You're bad, we're good'. I think that was the whole tenor of the question, which of course I disagree with. So, that has taken the debate a long way forward. It is surprising, a day after the parliament has supported action on climate change—

Senator Mason: It isn't the parliament!

Senator WONG: All right, the House of Representatives—that part of the parlia­ment—has supported action on climate change, has supported pricing pollution, has supported policies which are about jobs, job creation, reducing the risk to our children, and all that those opposite can do is come in and continue to harp about a whole range of details which they often get incorrect. The modelling builds on the modelling which was released in the previous parliament—the largest modelling exercise ever undertaken in Australia's history.

Senator Scullion: Show it to us.

Senator WONG: I invite the senator to go and read it because a lot of information, including assumptions, was provided. That modelling shows that the economy continues to grow, average incomes continue to grow, jobs continue to grow and carbon pollution falls by 160 million tonnes from what it otherwise would have been. These are the facts and they are the facts that Senator Cormann simply cannot bear.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, you asked the question. I am trying to listen to the answer.

Senator WONG: He cannot bear the fact that the premier economic advisers to government, whether it is a Labor govern­ment or a Liberal government, have said, 'You can price carbon and grow your economy, you can price carbon and increase the number of jobs, you can price carbon and incomes will still grow and you can grow your renewable energy industry and grow clean jobs for the future'. He cannot bear that proposition and all his questions stem from that fact.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:17): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why is it that eminent Australian economists like Professor Ergas, Professor McKibbin and Dr Fisher, and a range of industry groups—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Order on my right! Senator Cormann is entitled to be heard in silence.

Senator CORMANN: Thank you, Mr President. Why is it that all these economists have not been able to get access to the GTEM model and related datasets and specifications used by Treasury in its carbon tax modelling, even though Treasury—

Government senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator Conroy: Henry Ergas went bankrupt!

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Conroy!

Senator Boswell: Mr President, on a point of order: this is one of the most important questions that could ever be asked and I cannot hear the question. I ask you to get control of this place.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Boswell, that is not a point of order. You know that it is not a point of order. If I had the cooperation of both sides of this chamber it would be very helpful indeed, Senator Boswell.

Senator CORMANN: Why is it that eminent Australian economists like Professor Ergas, Professor McKibbin and Dr Fisher and a range of industry groups have not been able to get access to the GTEM model and related datasets and specifications used by Treasury in its carbon tax modelling, even though Treasury said in evidence before the Senate Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes that access to that model was available through ABARES?

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the minister it will help in the setting of the clock if those on my right are quiet during the asking of the question. I am entitled to hear the question; so is the chamber.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:19): The senator talks about eminent economists. There are no economists, eminent or otherwise, who support his policy so he might be better off considering why it is that no economists support his policy? It is probably not a question he wants to answer or think about.

Senator Cormann: Mr President, I raise a point of order in relation to the requirement for the minister to be directly relevant. I asked very specifically why certain infor­mation was not available when Treasury, in evidence to a Senate committee, said it was. The minister is giving us a lecture about something that is completely unrelated.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The minister has 40 seconds remaining.

Senator WONG: It is unsurprising that the opposition is so sensitive to the fact that no eminent economist or non-eminent economist supports its policy. It is unsurprising that it is embarrassed about the fact that its policy does not add up. It is unsurprising that it is embarrassed about the fact that its policy is predicated on ensuring that the pension increases are wound back. It is unsurprising that the opposition is embarrassed by the fact that its economic team, of which I understand Senator Cormann is a member, has never got their costings right, never got their numbers right and has a $70 billion black hole. We have put out an extraordinary amount of modelling and an extraordinary amount of material. It shows we can grow our economy and cut pollution. (Time expired)

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:21): Mr President, I ask a further supple­mentary question. Given these models used by Treasury for the carbon tax modelling were paid for by the taxpayer, and given those models have not been released to date, will the minister give a guarantee that all of its modelling, including the actual models, datasets and specifications used by the Treasury, will be released before the carbon tax bills are debated by the Senate so that third parties can review and scrutinise them?

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:22): This government has now released modelling on two occasions. We have updated the modelling. We have been extraordinarily transparent on this issue. I am asked whether or not more information will be received before the bills are dealt with. I make this point about that question: Senator Cormann's motivation in asking it is demonstrated by what his leader has said. No matter what, come hell or high water—written in blood—you are going to oppose this and then you want to repeal it should you ever win government. You are not interested in more information, Senator Cormann, so do not come in here and pretend you are. You never have been. Your side has never been interested in more information; you simply want to oppose. You are an opposition incapable of good public policy debate, you are an opposition addicted to wrecking and you are an opposition which will do anything and everything you can to wreck policies which are in the national interest if you believe it is in your short-term political interest to do so. That, Senator Cormann, is the truth of it.