Download Fragment

Thursday, 7 July 2011
Page: 4345

Carbon Pricing

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. Following up on yesterday's question about the government's commitment in the budget that the carbon tax would be budget neutral, I refer the minister to the article in today's Age newspaper which says that the cost of the carbon tax to the budget:

… has blown out to about $4 billion over four years …

It goes on to say:

Most of the extra costs come upfront, from implementing the scheme.

Given that most of the $4 billion in additional costs from the carbon tax will be upfront, can the minister confirm that the carbon tax will put Labor's claims of an early surplus of $3.5 billion in 2012-13 at serious risk?

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:52): I am happy to take that question because I am asked about the risk to the surplus—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator WONG: I am so pleased they are happy that I am happy.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator WONG: I am asked about the risk to the surplus. I can—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, resume your seat. Whilst happiness has broken out, Senator Wong, you are not asked to address that. Senator Wong, address the question. You have a minute and 43 seconds remaining.

Senator WONG: I am asked about risks to the surplus and I am very happy to say to the chamber that the risks to the budget surplus are those on the other side. You do not have to take it from me. We know this because Mr Hockey, the shadow Treasurer of the opposition, their most senior economic spokesman—

Senator Cormann: Mr President, I raise a point of order on the requirement for the minister to be directly relevant to the question. The minister was asked very specifically whether the cost of the carbon tax implementation will put the budget surplus in 2012-13 at risk. The minister has not gone anywhere near the question. We did not ask about any other risks; we asked about the very simple and single risk of the carbon tax to the budget surplus. I would ask you to draw the minister to the question.

Senator Fifield interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. I thought it was answered very well by Senator Fifield.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: If senators stopped interjecting across the chamber it would make it infinitely easier for me to hear the answers. Senator Wong, you have one minute and 11 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Senator WONG: I am unsurprised that Senator Cormann is embarrassed about listening to what Mr Hockey said.

A government senator: He wants his job.

Senator WONG: Mr Hockey's job. I think that might be a little difficult, but no doubt he believes that he would do a better job. Certainly, Mr Hockey on the surpluses has said to the Australian people, as the most senior economic spokesperson for the coalition, that he wants to run down the surpluses. He wants smaller surpluses in order to fund tax cuts. That is what your senior economic spokesperson has said, Senator Cormann. I suggest if you are concerned about that, Senator Cormann, perhaps you ought to have a discussion in shadow cabinet—

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, resume your seat. Wait a minute, Senator Cormann, I know you are on your feet. I am getting interjections on both sides, Senator Cormann—your side as well as the other side—so it makes it very difficult for you.

Senator Cormann: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Again, it is in relation to the requirement for the minister to be directly relevant. Even on the most generous interpretation of the requirements to be directly relevant there is no possibility of saying that the minister has been in any way directly relevant to the question that was asked, which was to what extent the cost of implementation of the carbon tax will put the budget surplus at risk. She has not gone anywhere near that particular question and I would ask you to draw the minister's attention to the question asked.

The PRESIDENT: The minister has 28 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Senator WONG: The point I am making in relation to the budget surplus is that we on this side are committed to budget surpluses. We will ensure that they are delivered by making the savings and delivering the savings. To come into this place, when the shadow Treasurer has made clear that your policy is to run down the surpluses, and pretend that that is not relevant to a surplus discussion just shows that rational economic policy has deserted your side. (Time expired)

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:57): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm how much the carbon tax costs to implement in each of the forward estimates years?

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:57): As I said yesterday on a range of occasions, the full details of the carbon price will be announced on Sunday. I have also said in this place and elsewhere that the figures in relation to the budget will be updated in the usual way, just as they were under your government, Senator Cormann—through you, Mr President—just as they were after the GST was announced, when, subsequently, budget figures were updated in the usual way. So you would anticipate that the next budget update will reflect any changes in relation to the budget numbers between the budget itself and the subsequent budget update.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator WONG: Yes, MYEFO. I think Senator Abetz is aware of when the next budget update is. We are clear about ensuring that that occurs.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:59): Mr President, I ask a further supple­mentary question. Given that, as of Sunday, the revenue figures in the budget will be wrong, the expenditure figures in the budget will be wrong, the CPI figures in the budget will be wrong, the economic growth figures in the budget will be wrong and the employment figures in the budget will be wrong, why would the government not bring down another budget before pressing ahead with its carbon tax?

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:59): I do not accept the premise of the question. To suggest that the figures are wrong is simply incorrect. As I have said, we will update the figures. Obviously the figures for jobs would have to be updated because we have seen a continued improvement in full-time jobs in the figures outlined today, which brings to 750,000 the number of jobs created in Australia since November 2007, since this government came into power. We on this side have worked to ensure that we have protected employment and economic growth through the global financial crisis. If we followed the advice of those opposite, including Senator Cormann, 200,000 Australians would have been added to the unemployment queues. We have created 750,000 jobs on this side—that includes the growth in full-time jobs in the last figures announced today—when those on the other side would have added 200,000 unemployed.

Senator Chris Evans: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.