Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Braddon for that question. We on this side of the House have understood for a long time the dangers of ignoring climate change in terms of our environment and our economy. We have understood the need to tackle climate change in the most cost-efficient way possible. We also understand that, if you put a price on carbon pollution, you have to assist households and you have to support jobs. We are putting a price on carbon pollution, to be paid by up to 1,000 of our largest polluters.

We simply cannot afford to put this challenge in the too hard-basket for any longer. Certainty demands action. That is why we are seeing such strong support from the business community for a price on carbon pollution. Overnight, 55 companies have come out in support of putting a price on carbon pollution—companies such as GE, Grocon, AGL, IKEA and so on. This is what the CEO of Grocon had to say:

Personally, I’m in favour of a cost on carbon. As I look forward in Australia, I see us at the threshold of some fantastic times and I get disillusioned when I see some critical decisions that need to be made for our future getting bogged down in politics.

He is absolutely correct. Of course that is why organisations such as the BCA and the AiG are supporting a price on carbon, and that is why some of our biggest energy companies are also supporting a price on carbon—companies such as Santos, Rio Tinto, BHP, Origin Energy, Gloucester Coal and so on. That is why on this side of the House we understand that we must make this transition to a clean energy future. As we make that transition we do have to provide support to households. Nine in 10 households will receive a combination of tax cuts, increased payments and pension increases. Of course we will provide additional assistance to those on the lowest incomes.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the approach of others who have a policy of subsidies for polluters and, of course, a policy which will not provide any assistance to households. The Leader of the Opposition was on The7.30 Report a couple of nights ago and he finally admitted that his policy will result in a direct slug on households—a direct slug of $720 per household. Of course that money will go directly to the biggest polluters in the country. You cannot put a slug of $720 on households and then pretend that you care about cost-of-living pressures in our community.

See this speech in context