Federal ICAC now

Comparing apples and fridges: Greg Hunt’s climate con

Case for Federal ICAC
Deceptive Conduct | Liberal Party | QED
Liberal Party

Comparing apples and fridges: Greg Hunt’s climate con

April 2015

As environment minster, Greg Hunt claimed that Labor’s carbon tax was more than 93 times more expensive than the Coalition’s Emissions Reduction Fund at reducing emissions.

Hunt claimed that the carbon tax “reduced emissions at over $1,300 per tonne [while] the Emissions Reduction Fund auction price averages $13.95 per tonne”.

“That’s about as wrong as you can possibly get it,” climate expert Professor Frank Jotzo told New Matilda. He said the real price was in the 20-odd dollar range.

Hunt also omitted to say that while the Coalition’s policy was a cost, the carbon tax raised revenue.

The Coalition spent $660 million of taxpayers’ funds buying 47 million tonnes of carbon abatement.

In contrast, the carbon price achieved an abatement of between 11 and 17 million tonnes over its two-year life, while raising around $6 billion according to Professor Jotzo’s ANU study on the emissions reductions directly attributable to the carbon price in the electricity sector alone.

As John Connor, the CEO of the Climate Institute, put it, Hunt’s price comparisons are like “comparing apples and fridges”.

Read more

What's a rort?

Conflicts of Interest

Redirecting funding to pet hobbies; offering jobs to the boys without a proper tender process; secretly bankrolling candidates in elections; taking up private sector jobs in apparent breach of parliament’s code of ethics, the list goes on.

Deceptive Conduct

Claiming that greenhouse gas emissions have gone down when the facts clearly show otherwise; breaking the law on responding to FoI requests; reneging on promised legislation; claiming credit for legislation that doesn’t exist; accepting donations that breach rules. You get the drift of what behaviour this category captures.

Election Rorts

In the months before the last election, the Government spent hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money on grants for sports, community safety, rural development programs and more. Many of these grants were disproportionally awarded to marginal seats, with limited oversight and even less accountability.

Dubious Travel Claims

Ministerial business that just happens to coincide with a grand final or a concert; electorate business that must be conducted in prime tourist locations, or at the same time as party fundraisers. All above board, maybe, but does it really pass the pub test? Or does it just reinforce the fact that politicians take the public for mugs?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This