Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I understand the minister’s point about not committing extra resources to the Frontier model, given that the government and the opposition—the alternative government—do not support it. Clearly, resources have been expended in providing engaging modelling for this scheme so it is a case of asking for information that the Commonwealth already has. I will not make it any higher than that—it is not asking for anything new; it is asking for material that would already be in the possession of the government. I can write to the minister about that. I have already alluded to a couple of those issues and it is something that I tabled—but withdrew—last week in the context of a second reading amendment. After consultation with the Greens I rolled in a simpler version of that amendment together with the Greens amendment which, unfortunately, did not get up. What I have said is clear but as a courtesy to the minister I would be happy to write to her about that.

The other issue is about compensation. This is still an issue for the 750,000 small and medium businesses in this country that will receive little or no compensation under this scheme. They would have received no compensation under the government’s original CPRS and some compensation to the tune of $1.1 billion in the package of amendments that were negotiated with the then opposition leader and Mr Macfarlane last week. There is still a significant price rise for businesses in this country. I believe that is an impost on jobs and on growth. We can do better in aiming for higher emission reduction targets. If we can reduce the direct and indirect costs of such a scheme, that is a good thing.

I say to those in the coalition who believe that a carbon tax is the best approach that the problem with a carbon tax is that you do not have any level of certainty in terms of overall emissions; that you do not have any level of business certainty for investment because a carbon tax can be adjusted upwards or downwards at any time; and that, because action on climate change requires a global approach, being able to trade, being able to have permits and the tradability of permits is an integral part of that. I do not think I am saying anything there that the government will disagree with, but for those in the coalition who think that there is an alternative way forward with the carbon tax, I suggest that it is simply too narrow a focus and does not take advantage of the opportunities that already exist with respect to a European scheme. It is inevitable that we will have a whole range of other schemes up and running given the commitments that have been made by a number of developed nations and, for that matter, by a number of developing countries that have gone down the path of saying that we need to take urgent action on climate change.