Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

On the positive side, at least we should welcome the fact that the member for Lyne's speech was only 14 minutes this time. Let me be very clear, because it has been the position for a very, very long time: we accept the science, we accept the targets and we accept the need for a market mechanism; we just happen to clearly, absolutely, fundamentally disagree over the choice of those mechanisms. They chose a carbon tax, they chose an emissions trading scheme, they chose to increase electricity prices, they chose to increase gas prices and they chose to increase refrigeration prices but they did not choose to tell the Australian people that that was what they would do. Well, we challenge every member of the ALP to come clean with a very simple proposition: if the coalition does win the trust of the Australian people, if the coalition is given the opportunity to form government, will the members of the ALP respect the mandate given by the Australian people to repeal the carbon tax? That is a very simple test: will the members of the ALP respect the mandate of the Australian people, if we are successful, to repeal the carbon tax?

This is not a debate about science although let me say this: every person in Australia has a right to their views, every person should be able to speak without fear or favour, every person in a democracy should be able to give their views. Now I—and we—come down on a particular side, that there is a case to deal with, but everybody should be able to speak without fear or favour and express their views. That is what democracy is about. If there are members of the ALP who want to clamp down on people's rights to express their views then that is something which they should out themselves on.

So let us go back to a very simple proposition: whilst we agree on the science, we agree on the targets and we agree on the need for markets, we disagree absolutely and fundamentally on their market mechanism of a carbon tax which is the highest in the world and which is about to become the most volatile in the world after 1 July 2015. I do want to make one point about market theory here because we hear a lot of tripe from the government and from some who should know better about that. There are different types of market mechanisms. Three Nobel economics laureates, all of whom accept the science of climate change and all of whom are amongst the world's most pure and most eminent market economists—Finn Kydland, Thomas Schelling and Vernon Smith—ranked 15 different approaches to reducing emissions. Of those 15, there were three carbon tax mechanisms. The 15 included technology and work on forests but the three which they ranked as the worst and least efficient means of addressing the problem were the three forms of the carbon tax and as the price got higher you went from 13 to 14 and to 15. Finn Kydland, Thomas Schelling and Vernon Smith—three of the world's Nobel economics laureates from the last decade and all climate change believers and all pure market economists. So when we hear that there is only one way, perhaps—just perhaps—the government members and the crossbenchers may want to go and speak with three of the world's great Nobel economics laureates. So the answer is very simple: we agreed on the science, we agree on the targets and we agree on the market but we could not disagree more on the choice of market mechanism. For these reasons we are happy to let your motion pass but we will fight right up to election day to take away your carbon tax.

See this speech in context