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

those opposite will be responsible for that. So this is a very important reform for Australia—on a par with floating the dollar, on a par with bringing down the tariff walls, on a par with introducing enterprise bargaining—because it goes to the very foundation of productivity and efficiency in our economy. That is where it goes. But we do not see any understanding of that. The Leader of the Opposition would rather be Prime Minister of a high-polluting, struggling economy. He would rather have an economy that was high polluting and struggling than one where the right decisions were taken for future generations. That is what he is effectively saying. He would rather see the country fail than see this government succeed in preparing us for the future. That is how irresponsible he has become.

In addition, there is the way in which the Leader of the Opposition is characterising what we have already done and how we are planning to put in place a price on carbon. That is important. Our plan charges polluters. It charges polluters so we can provide assistance to households and to industry. That is what it does. The plan that the Leader of the Opposition is outlining is to tax families so he can hand money to polluters. That is the difference. It is a clear, stark difference—not one that the Leader of the Opposition understands, but I know it is one that is understood across the back benches over there and of course on the front benches, because the member for Wentworth has put it very clearly. He had this to say on 8 February 2010 of such a plan:

Having the government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale, and there will always be a temptation for projects to be selected for their political appeal.

In other words, the Leader of the Opposition wants the people of Australia to pay—and pay and pay. If they are going to get the emission reductions that are required, he will be spending a lot more than $10 billion. This is the crew that had a $10 billion costing con job in their costings for the last election, where the Treasury said they were so incompetent they could not even put together a budget. Of course, the opposition were warned about the approach that they are still articulating in the Treasury blue book. This is what the Treasury said to the coalition about their so-called direct action:

Direct action measures alone cannot do the job without imposing significant economic and budget costs.

That is what the Treasury advised the opposition.

The other big lie we have had in this House from the Leader of the Opposition is to do with his use of the word ‘tax’. He runs around the place talking about carbon pricing as if it is a revenue-raising measure which is just going to some general government services. It is doing no such thing. All of the revenue, every cent, that comes from the carbon price will be going back to households, into industry and into climate change policies, as it should. It does not suit his three-word slogans, but that is where it is going. There will be a day of reckoning for those opposite when budget time comes around and they have to stump up one or two alternatives. It will be a real day of reckoning.

See this speech in context