Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I have sat here and listened to the debate so far, it has become apparent to me that those opposite do not understand that there is no zero-cost policy or program when it comes to reducing emissions in our economy and throughout the globe. That is a point that is well understood by economists throughout the world. It is well understood by sensible policy makers. But apparently it is a point that is not well understood by or has not dawned on those opposite. There is no zero-cost way to reduce emissions in our economy so as to protect our environment. Yet those opposite wish to give the impression in this place and in the wider community that we can somehow reduce emissions in our economy with no cost to our nation, no cost to businesses, no cost to households—no cost at all. That is a complete fallacy. They are living in another world if they cannot grasp that fundamental issue. Of course there is going to be some cost in reducing emissions.

The approach that the government took in relation to this very important social and economic issue was to seek the advice of expert economists. The brief that was given to them was: how do we reduce emissions in the context of the commitment that our nation has made at a global level through international agreements? This is a commitment that those opposite say that they believe in and say is their policy—a five per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. Their brief was: how do we reduce emissions with the lowest-cost method throughout our economy? And of course those economists came back and said that the best way to do that was through an emissions trading scheme, a market based mechanism. That is what this legislation seeks to do.

Many of those opposite used to believe in a market based mechanism. Indeed, that is the Liberal Party philosophy: 'We believe in the efficiency of markets, that government should get out of the way.' Not when it comes to this issue!