Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to the fact that Frontier Economics found that, with some amendments, a greener and smarter emissions trading scheme would be $49 billion cheaper than the government’s proposed scheme. Prime Minister, why won’t you even consider the Frontier Economics detailed proposal to save the Australian economy $49 billion?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. He asks me about the government’s response to this report produced by Frontier Economics. The first response to his question is: those opposite have not adopted it as policy—and they have not adopted it as policy 18 to 20 months into this government’s term, having set already some seven precedents as to that which needed to be met before those opposite would frame a policy. In December 2007 they said they had to wait for the Garnaut report to come down before releasing their policy. Then in September 2008 they said they would wait for the Treasury modelling. In September 2008 they then said they would wait for the white paper. In December 2008 they said they would wait for the Pearce report—I wonder what happened to that one. In April 2009 they said they would wait for the Senate inquiry. In May 2009 they said they would wait for the Productivity Commission, forgetting that the Productivity Commission had already made a submission on emissions trading to the Howard government’s Shergold report—and remember it dealt with the matter in the previous government. Now they say they have got to wait for Copenhagen and for President Obama’s scheme. That is seven separate delaying tactics, and now we have an eighth. Of course, it actually goes to the core politics of those opposite. The reason they are not engaged in long-term policy for the nation is they cannot organise their short-term politics for the Liberal Party.

The second answer I would give to the member for North Sydney in response to his question goes back to this proposal, this non-proposal, from the Liberal Party—this Liberal Party magic pudding which says you can produce a scheme which costs less than the CPRS while at the same time providing more by way of financial assistance to the emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors and to the coal industry. That is the magic pudding economics which underpins those opposite—and they ask this parliament why we fail to take their propositions seriously! I believe that those opposite might command some respect if they could organise a position, act in the long-term national economic interest of Australia, provide the Australian business community with the certainty that they ask and vote for the legislation which currently languishes in the Senate, where they left it to languish as of the last sitting week of the last session of the parliament.