Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As an eight-year-old I learned that my 50c would not buy me everything I wanted. The members opposite do not seem to have learned the same lesson on the value of money.

The coalition's plan also costs more because it does not deal with international action. It does not matter where the emissions occur; they all have an equally detrimental impact on the environment. Each tonne of abated CO2 reduces the chance of bleaching the Great Barrier Reef, whether abated from Australia or elsewhere. Abatement is available at lower cost overseas. By forcing all abatement to take place in Australia, the coalition is choosing to pay more for the same environmental benefit. The coalition is choosing to increase the burden on Australia and therefore on Australian taxpayers for the same environmental outcome.

On the topic of the coalition's direct action plan's price tag, I note that on page 17 of the coalition's talking points they claim that direct action has no cost to families, yet page 18 states that direct action will cost $3.2 billion over the first four years. The coalition seem to be confused as to where funds for government expenditure come from. In fact, Treasury modelling estimates the cost of direct action at $1,300 per household per year. The opposition's approach to renewable energy uptake is to provide minimal funding for limited projects such as solar roofs and just 25 geothermal or tidal towns. If we could predict the future and know that solar and tidal are the best technologies, this would be a credible approach; but, given that crystal balls are notoriously unreliable, the opposition's desire to micromanage industry is mind boggling. The approach picks winners, is inefficient and has been demonstrated to be cost ineffective when compared with market based mechanisms.

I also note the opposition's regular complaint that Australia should not act because the world is not acting—that we do not want to get ahead of the pack. This complaint is curious because page 8 of the direct action plan states, 'Most developed countries have undertaken action on climate change.' The opposition go on to state there that the action taken by most developed countries are national emissions trading schemes, taxes or a mix of the two. Also curious is the direct action plan's labelling of Nordic countries' electricity tax incentives as direct action. Page 8 of their plan states:

Many of the Nordic countries have taken more direct action by introducing electricity tax incentives for most users to use less electricity and extensive subsidies for public transport.

Should this be taken to mean that the opposition views taxes as direct action?

The confusion is illustrative of the direct action plan generally. As a Labor Party member I cannot believe I have to explain this to the coalition. Markets work well; but, rather than use the market, the coalition want to micromanage business. Rather than use the market, the opposition want to pick their favourite technologies. Rather than the market, the coalition want an ineffective and expensive grant-tendering fund. Rather than use the market, the coalition want an ineffective and expensive rebate program. Rather than use the market, the coalition want to pay for promised projects, not actual reduced emissions. Rather than use the market, the coalition want direct action—an expensive, ineffective and confused scheme. The coalition's direct action plan will result in either very high cost to taxpayers or the 2020 emissions target not being met. Direct action will not promote innovation and will leave Australia locked out of the world's clean energy markets. The government's renewable energy policies encourage innovation, research and development, and commercialisation of technologies. ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation— (Time expired)

See this speech in context