Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for McEwen for his question. The government has set out a plan to tackle climate change by establishing a carbon price through a market mechanism. Of course, a carbon price through a market mechanism is going to be the most economically efficient way of cutting pollution and driving investment in clean energy.

On the other side of the chamber, we have the so-called direct action policy. What we know from scrutinising that policy is that it demonstrates that it would cost over $30 billion rather than the claimed $10.5 billion, which would mean that the average Australian family would be $720 a year worse off under the Leader of the Opposition’s direct action policy. Furthermore, under that policy—a direct cost to the budget—there will not be a single dollar of assistance for households to meet those costs.

Under direct action any future government is going to face a $30 billion budget black hole. That $30 billion is going to need to be met through higher taxes or cuts in expenditure and cuts to services. Without that expenditure, the opposition has no hope of achieving its stated target of a five per cent cut in emissions by the year 2020. It is bad economics and it is bad for the environment. Interestingly enough, the shadow minister, the member for Flinders, has not in the course of the day—and I have been watching—effectively attempted to deny their figures. He does not deny the $30 billion black hole and he does not deny the $720 cost to families. Instead, the problem is to be solved with the magic bullet of soil carbon.

Not only are there significant questions about the science of sequestering carbon through the soil but there are also agreed international rules that prevent us counting soil carbon as abatement for our pollution reduction targets. The member for Flinders seems to be implying that it is all going to be okay because he is going to change the international accounting rules. He is going to go to the UN and convince 190-odd countries to change the international accounting rules. I cannot see it happening in a hurry.

The opposition have run out all sorts of interference today. They have likened the Prime Minister and other government ministers to Colonel Gaddafi and all sorts of ridiculous things, but they have not effectively answered this question about their own policy. They will not stand up for market principles. Their policy is a farce. The shadow Treasurer has been pretty vocal about this issue. He is well and truly on the record as a man of market principles. Only some months ago, in the book by Lenore Taylor and David Uren, he said:

I was acting industry minister in 2002 when Peter Costello, David Kemp and I argued, unsuccessfully at that stage, in the Howard cabinet that we should have an ETS.

He went on to say:

I believe the market mechanism is the best way to price a commodity. I am a true believer in markets.

Why don’t you act on it?

See this speech in context