House debates
Thursday, 21 November 2013
Bills
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013, Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013, Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013; Second Reading
10:22 am
Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Hansard source
More recently, in October this year the Sydney Morning Herald undertook a survey of 35 prominent university and business economists on their views on the government's Direct Action policy. Only two of them believed it was a better policy than a market-based mechanism. Three of them, to be fair, rejected both schemes, but that meant 86 per cent of those surveyed were of the view that the emissions trading scheme was a better economic method of addressing the challenge.
One of them, the internationally renowned Australian economist, Justin Wolfers actually said:
… direct action would involve more economic disruption but have a lesser environmental pay-off than an emissions trading scheme.
BT Financial's Dr Chris Caton said any economist who did not opt for emissions trading "should hand his degree back"
The Prime Minister's view of these 'rascally' economists would probably not surprised the House. The article reports:
In 2011, Mr Abbott took a swipe at some who had criticised the Coalition's scheme, saying "maybe that's a comment on the quality of our economists rather than on the merits of argument''.
No comments