Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House why it is in Australia’s long-term economic interest for us to tackle climate change and why an emissions-trading scheme is central to the government’s climate change response?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for what is a very important question. Climate change is the biggest economic challenge that the global community faces. Under this government, Australia is rising to that challenge—unlike the climate change sceptics opposite, who put it in the too-hard basket for 12 years. It is the case that the economic costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action. Left unaddressed, climate change will undermine economic growth and destroy our way of life. Climate change threatens agricultural exports worth $27 billion. The costs of extreme weather alone could reach between 0.5 per cent and one per cent of world GDP by the middle of the century. We need to change the way the economy works, to move from a high-emissions economy to a low-emissions economy. Reducing carbon emissions is a growth strategy for the future. Not acting is what destroys growth and prosperity into the future.

The best way to address carbon emissions is through an emissions-trading scheme. Introducing one of these is difficult. We do not pretend otherwise. Tough decisions will need to be made, because major economic reform is never easy. Major economic reform requires courage, leadership and purpose. The longer we delay, the more it will cost. Just imagine what this country might have been like if back then, five years ago, the former government had had the courage to introduce an emissions-trading scheme when it went to the cabinet, when they had the opportunity to grasp the future, and they squibbed it. This government says we have no choice but to act.

There are some opposite who once thought that an emissions-trading scheme was something that was worth while. That was when they had some faint connection to economic credibility. In fact, the member for Wentworth’s website—and I do not know if he showed this to the focus group or not—had this to say: ‘Australia’s emissions-trading scheme will be the most comprehensive in the world.’

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the big hit, is it?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a lot more yet, boy. Of course, we have had some remarkable backflips from those opposite, particularly from the member for Wentworth. The member for Wentworth said inflation was a fairy story. Remember when he said that, on inflation, it was ‘mission accomplished’? In the House he said that it was ‘mission accomplished’. Then he came to the House last week and suddenly admitted that inflation may have been a central challenge. He is someone who will say anything and do anything. This morning on Sky TV he was interviewed by Kieran Gilbert. This is what Kieran Gilbert said the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources said in 2007:

By bringing transport fuels into the Australian emissions trading system consumers will be given greater incentive to improve the energy efficiency of their transport choices.

Kieran Gilbert said, ‘Who said that?’ Mr Turnbull said, ‘No, that was Howard government policy.’ Who was the environment minister back when they were talking about an emissions-trading system? Was it the member for Curtin? No. Was it the member for North Sydney?

Government Members:

No.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who was it? It was the member for Wentworth. That is what he said: ‘By bringing transport fuels into the Australian emissions-trading system consumers will be given greater incentive to improve their energy efficiency and transport choices.’ That is what he had to say. He is trying to crab-walk away from the Howard government policy that he was claiming credit for only last year. What does this demonstrate? That those opposite are completely spineless when it comes to facing up to the great challenges of the future. They are yesterday’s men and women in every sense. They are economic and environmental Neanderthals. We had all these old arguments from them before. We had them against Kyoto. They do not have one ounce of policy courage when it comes to facing up to this challenge of climate change. They are simply prepared to be irresponsible, to play short-term politics and to sell the nation’s future down the drain. They should be condemned.