Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I refer to the section of the report that the Leader of the Opposition referred to to ensure that, rather than having it misrepresented in this place, people understand what Professor Garnaut is putting here. He puts very clearly—these are his exact words:

Using direct action measures to achieve a similar amount of emissions reduction would raise costs much more than carbon pricing, but would not raise the revenue to offset or reduce the costs in any of these ways. The costs might be covered by budgetary expenditure, but this affects who pays the costs, not whether the costs are there. Other people’s taxes have to rise to pay for expenditures under direct action.

Who are those 'other people' whose taxes have to rise? They are probably better known to the Australian community as mums and dads with jobs who would need to pay the increased taxes that the Leader of the Opposition would need in order to subsidise big polluters.

What we have said consistently, and Professor Garnaut makes this point too, is you put a price on carbon pollution. Big polluters pay that price. We have always been very clear indeed that there would be some price impacts, which is why we take revenue from pricing carbon and we generously assist households who need it the most. I have said that many times before. The Leader of the Opposition may only just have heard it: we generously assist households who will need that assistance the most. The difference here is more tax for Australian families and no assistance compared to a price on the biggest polluters and using that money to assist households. I suggest the Leader of the Opposition, instead of looking at the occasional word in Professor Garnaut's report, reads the whole lot.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

See this speech in context