Page 1750 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The economists were given a choice between direct regulation and market or price-based mechanisms, and the results were quite striking. Only 11.8 per cent of the economists who responded to the survey favoured direct regulation. The market-based mechanism was favoured by the vast majority of economists. In fact, 79 per cent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that a price-based mechanism was a better response to reducing carbon emissions.
Another important perspective on direct action came from Treasury modelling released under freedom of information laws last year. What it showed was that under the direct action plan the coalition would have to impose an effective carbon price of $62 a tonne per carbon abated. This, of course, is compared to the starting price of $23 per tonne under the carbon pricing package currently in place.
Mr Rattenbury: Double.
MS HUNTER: It is double. So the effective price under a coalition government would be more than double. On top of that, the direct action plan includes no compensation for households and the taxes they will have to pay to fund the direct action scheme. It is very clear that the Liberals have no idea about how to tackle climate change. Indeed, I think there is some doubt about whether or not they accept the science that it is happening. They do continue, it appears, to put their heads in the sand.
It is very clear that Canberrans want strong action on climate change and understand that they have an obligation to make their fair contribution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I find it interesting that some people who say they are leaders in this case—I am referring to both Mr Abbott and Mr Seselja—can stand up and say they will not do anything until everyone else does. That is not leadership. Following others is not leadership. Not listening to the science is not leadership. Looking after their big polluter mates is not leadership; yet, after all, that is what they want to do.
The Liberal Party want to protect the financial interests of their billionaire mates like Clive Palmer. They do not want them to pay the cost of their pollution. They want the community to pay the cost. The carbon price package delivers fair compensation to the households that need it and ensures that the cost falls squarely on the polluters. This is exactly as it should be.
I was going to go to some of the measures relating to the compensation that has been put in place, but I think instead that I will respond to the comment just made by Mr Barr in his speech. I am highly alarmed and concerned, if this is the case, that Mr Abbott has come out today to say that he supports a move by the bigger states to change the way that the GST is distributed and that this could rip $165 million out of the ACT budget. Along with the 12,000 jobs, this will be disastrous. I am extremely concerned. (Time expired.)
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Corbell.
Mr Smyth: On a point of order, please, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video