Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the importance of getting the economics of the emissions-trading scheme right and what the government is doing to ensure it benefits from broad consultation?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question, because this government does understand that the cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the cost of action. We also understand that there are great economic opportunities for Australia in the move from the high-emissions economy of the past to a low-emissions economy of the future. The CSIRO report that the Prime Minister was talking about before is very important. I want to quote from that for a moment. It says:

There is a triple-dividend of greater wellbeing, cost-saving and greater competitiveness and reduced environmental impact to be earned if measures would be taken to support the skill revolution required for a low-carbon, environmentally sound society.

This again highlights how important and how economically responsible it is to tackle climate change. It also highlights the need for an emissions-trading system—that is the responsible thing to do. Of course an emissions-trading system will limit the amount of carbon we produce by creating a cost to those producing the carbon emissions—that is true. But it will allow households, business and industry to choose the best ways to cut these omissions. To do that we do need an emissions-trading scheme that has a broad coverage. The wider the coverage the more the burden of emissions reduction is shared across the economy and so the lower the total cost to the economy.

In designing an emissions-trading scheme we will be mindful of advice—we will be mindful of Treasury modelling, international research and of course the academic work of Professor Garnaut. The government’s green paper on the emissions-trading scheme will be released in mid-July and it will form the basis for an initial round of formal consultation with business, the social sector and the wider community.

Those opposite have no coherent approach to this at all. They have failed to provide any leadership in this area. As I said the other day, they are the Neanderthals of climate change. They are simply stuck in the past. There has been backflip after backflip. The backflips on the other side are truly of Olympic proportions. First of all is the timing backflip. They said 2011 this morning, and yesterday they again pushed the timeline out. Backflip No. 2 is the petrol backflip, because now petrol is out, but of course the member for Wentworth said it was in. Of course, there is now the China backflip. Before, they were going to move ahead without China and India; now they want to wait for China and India. Of course, these are truly spectacular backflips. The backflips of the Liberal Party, as I said before, are of Olympic proportions. The timing backflip, the petrol backflip and the China and India backflips condemn them for being unable to meet the very big challenges of the future.