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

I thank the member for Page for her question. She understands the benefits of tackling climate change. She understands the benefits of pricing carbon. She is someone who has worked with her local farming and agricultural industry to discuss the benefits of carbon farming and measures for agriculture to benefit from programs like our Carbon Farming Initiative, which was launched in her electorate.

We have a responsibility to price carbon in the national interest. I do not want Australia to be amongst the highest carbon pollution emitters in the world. I do not want to experience an energy shock in fossil fuel prices and a fossil fuel constrained future. I do not want future generations to be saddled with the costs of our delay. I do not want our economy to be left behind. I do not want our confident nation to be let down. I do not want a debate that is ruled by fear instead of facts. That is why we need to act now and we need to have a national debate that is ruled by facts, not fear.

A carbon price will make polluters pay, and that price signal will mean that businesses innovate and find lower pollution ways of doing things. It has happened before. To take an example of how pricing pollution works, let us look at the endeavours in the United States to remove the problem of acid rain. A price was put on sulfur emissions from power stations and people said, ‘They’ll install scrubbers to deal with the stripping of sulfur. That will be very expensive. How will everybody cope?’ In truth, what happened was that they innovated, so they switched to coal with lower sulfur. They innovated and, yes, they did install those scrubbers, but because power stations were demanding the scrubbers in large numbers there was innovation and volume that brought the price down. What we should learn from this example is very clear: a price signal sends a message to business to innovate and to reduce pollution. When businesses started reducing pollution they worked out how to generate what they needed to with less pollution and they increased demand for alternative technologies and that in and of itself brought the price down.

Former Prime Minister Mr Howard recognised these economic realities. He recognised that there would be transitional costs, but he recognised that there could be a new, lower pollution future when he said:

Significantly reducing emissions will mean higher costs for businesses and households, there is no escaping that and anyone who pretends to do otherwise is not a serious participant in this hugely important public policy debate.

On this side of the House we are serious about this enormously important public policy debate. It is why we are being frank with the Australian people about the need to price carbon. It is why we are being frank with the Australian people about price effects. It is why we are being frank with the Australian people about how this will change and transform our economy to a clean energy future. What we are not doing is trying to hide the cost, the way the Leader of the Opposition is—desperately trying to hide his $30 billion impost on Australian families and his extra tax bill of $720 a year. We will continue being frank and working this debate through with Australians. We would expect the Leader of the Opposition to come clean about the costs of his scheme too.

See this speech in context