Senate debates

Tuesday, 11 August 2009

Questions without Notice

Climate Change

2:06 pm

Photo of Penny WongPenny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you to Senator McEwen for the question. The senator is indeed correct: the cheapest or lowest-cost way to tackle climate change is with a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme with the broadest possible coverage of the economy. Of course, that once was the Liberal Party’s policy—something I think Senator Bernardi might want to remember, because I noticed when I came into the chamber that Senator Bernardi was saying he has an open mind. I quote from his website blog:

... I remain unconvinced about the need for an ETS given that carbon dioxide is vital for life on earth ...

It is almost as good as Dr Jensen, in the other place, saying, ‘What about some sort of shadecloth put into orbit?’ This is the sort of view from the other side. Of course, one thing that Senator Bernardi should perhaps talk about is the fact that he went to the election with a commitment for an ETS. Were you lying to the Australian people, Senator Bernardi?

The reality is that the proposal brought forward yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition’s consultant, which would replicate the failed Canadian experiment on climate change, is not the cheapest way to reduce carbon pollution in Australia. It is not cheaper to increase uncertainty across the economy. It is not cheaper to undermine investment and jobs by pretending that uncertainty does not matter. It is not cheaper to throw away opportunities to reduce carbon pollution and it is not cheaper to exempt emissions intensive trade exposed industries from playing their part in the change that is needed.

There is nothing cost effective about giving electricity generators so much assistance that they net windfall gains, and there is nothing cost effective about making low- and middle-income Australia worse off by scrapping their compensation. There is nothing cost effecive about increasing the risks to the budget if this poorly designed scheme that those opposite are— (Time expired)

Comments

No comments