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

I completely repudiate what the government has said in relation to this. Let us put the process into perspective. Part of this process is that this debate is going to be guillotined in less than an hour, which is completely unsatisfactory. The so-called Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was a committee that, by choice, the coalition did not participate in. I tried to get on it but was not allowed to participate in it. I wonder how broad it was in terms of seeking the best possible abatement solutions. The work done by Frontier Economics, using the same model as that used by Treasury, indicates that over 10 years this scheme, with less churn, less revenue burn and less inefficiency, would actually save $47 billion over 10 years. These are people that undertake work in the real world. They deal with governments of both political persuasions. They deal with industry. They deal with NGOs. I believe their research is impeccable. It demonstrates that what the government is proposing to do involves an enormous amount of churn. It involves putting a price on all carbon rather than a price above a baseline that you are seeking to achieve. It creates enormous inefficiencies. It creates distortions in our tax system. The intensity approach is equivalent to introducing a tax on emissions but providing a targeted reduction in a production or company tax. The carbon tax that is proposed here introduces a distortion and it will be a drag on the economy with little environmental gain. I maintain the position that this is a much more effective and efficient way of dealing with it. The so-called Multi-Party Climate Change Committee did not adequately look at the Frontier approach, an alternative approach that would have delivered a much better environmental outcome at a much lower cost to industry and to taxpayers.