Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that the government's former emissions trading scheme proposed to increase industry compensation over time, while Professor Garnaut proposes to reduce industry compensation over time. Treasurer, which one of these ideas is government policy?

Mr Dutton interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dickson is warned.

Mr Dutton interjecting—

Mr Sidebottom interjecting—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The member for Dickson is saved by the member for Braddon. The House will settle down.

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

Professor Garnaut has produced a very good report, a quite important set of findings to deal with dangerous climate change which emphasises just how important it is to our future economic prosperity that we reduce carbon pollution. He makes the point so strongly that the cost of not acting is far greater than the cost of acting and, therefore, we as a nation need to come to grips with this fundamental challenge. We will come to grips with this fundamental challenge because everybody on this side of the House believes in the science of climate change, unlike those opposite. Everyone on this side of the House knows we have to do something about it. Those on that side of the House do not understand it whatsoever.

Dr Jensen interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Tangney.

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

They are so politically opportunistic that we get questions like this day after day that are simply a nonsense. They know that the recommendations that Professor Garnaut has made will come to the government—

Dr Jensen interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Tangney is warned.

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

and we will make up our mind in consultation with the multi-party committee about the direction in which we will go. But they want to come into the House, because they are so embarrassed about their clear lack of an alternative, and make all sorts of assertions which are simply not true. The thing they are most embarrassed about is the finding by Professor Garnaut that their so-called direct action policy, which is really a no action policy, will cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars every year. This is what Professor Garnaut has had to say:

Other people's taxes have to rise to pay for expenditures under direct action.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was extremely clear. Will the government propose to progressively increase or decrease compensation to industry? That was the question—nothing about direct action.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Treasurer will directly relate his response to the question.

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

We have made it very clear that we will use the revenue from the carbon price—which will be paid by the 1,000 largest polluters—first of all to assist households and then to assist industry and to invest in important climate change programs. We have made that absolutely clear.

Professor Garnaut has made a series of recommendations. We will follow some maybe and we may not follow some. We are considering these in a methodical way, working through all the issues with the multi-party committee, consulting with business and consulting with the wider community. That is the perfectly rational way to go about making policy and it is the way in which the Australian people expect us to go about making policy. But those on that side of the House have become so negative and so apparently bitter now that there is no rational thought process going on at all on the opposition front bench. If you listen to their questions today, question after question is simply being wasted. It has been an abject performance and one which reflects very poorly on all of them.