Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

That is a policy decision, just as government makes policy decisions in a whole range of circumstances. You set a cap on pollution because you make a policy decision that, firstly, 'We want to actually try to reduce the amount of pollution that this nation puts into the atmosphere,' and, secondly, 'We want to give an economic incentive for business to find cheaper, cleaner ways of doing business. That is what we want to do. We want to reward the clean energy innovators of today and tomorrow.' That is what we do. It is a market mechanism, unlike under Direct Action. So, instead of some public servant determining what is the most efficient way to reduce pollution, we have the market doing that, the market finding the most efficient way and the lowest cost way for emissions to be reduced.

That is why consistently economies from the time John Howard set up his task group on emissions trading in, I think, 2005-06 and onwards—and in fact prior to that, but from then on certainly in the context of the Australian debate—have said that they believe that emissions trading is the most efficient way to reduce Australia's emissions. So the minister's proposition that somehow this is not a market mechanism is a false one and really flies in the face of reputable economists here in Australia and around the world.

It seems remarkable that this comes from a party that believe in free markets. This of course is Minister Cormann's argument for the deregulation of university fees—also a market the government creates by a policy decision. His argument in favour of the deregulation of fees is that it allows the market to work. It seems remarkable that a party that allegedly believe in the power of the market would prefer a bureaucratically run scheme where public servants in fact find the cheapest way—supposedly—of reducing emissions.

We obviously have some amendments before the chair and there are other amendments that people seek to speak on. I do have some questions that I might jump ahead at this point and ask of the minister, given the time. In relation to the newly revised amendment by Senator Lazarus, which has been circulated but not yet moved, I would like to ask the minister a few questions. First, is the government—

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Wong, that question is not actually before the chair.

That is true, but given that the debate is about to be truncated, I think it would be useful for the Senate to know if it is the government's intention for this amendment to be accepted in the House of Representatives. I think it is reasonable for the Senate to know whether or not this is an amendment that the government—