Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Moore for her question. Both sides of politics have committed to making a significant reduction in the carbon emissions of the Australian economy, but of course there are sharp differences in how we go about achieving those reductions. The first option is to introduce an explicit carbon price and allow individual businesses and households to choose the best way to cut emissions. The second option is for the government to choose how to reduce emissions through subsidies and more red tape—what those opposite call direct action. The most economically efficient way of tackling climate change is through the establishment of a carbon price via a market mechanism. This is the view of the mainstream businesses, most economists and the premier economic institutions, both here and overseas. It is a unanimous position.

I am asked about the alternatives. In its latest economic survey of Australia, the OECD said that the costs of regulatory approaches to reduce emissions can ‘be more than twice as high as the cost of market based approaches’. Why would we want to pay twice as much to achieve at best the same outcome? We should not just rely on the OECD’s views regarding the opposition’s policy of direct action, because on 22 July this year the member for Wentworth also told ABC News—