Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the guidance and I will ensure it does not happen again. This place should be a forum for struggle. It should be a struggle for ideas. It is one of the biggest issues facing the country and it should have two sides being able to put up competing approaches to deal with this issue of climate change and how we respond. We have put a price on pollution. We recognise that with this issue you cannot keep putting it off, that in actual fact we need to embark on a major economic and environmental reform. We have put forward a comprehensive plan. Those opposite believe the best way to deal with it is to plant a stack of trees. Relying on the science and relying upon market-driven responses, we have put forward a solution. Those opposite cannot find one scientist or economist to back what they are saying.

On the way through, we have admitted, acknowledged and been quite upfront that there will be price impacts, but we have also provided a comprehensive and far-reaching assistance package. Their response is to take it away: pension increases—gone; family tax benefit increases—gone; tax threshold increases—gone. I did say that this place is a place for struggle but for those opposite I never thought it was a struggle for comprehension, to be able to understand what needs to be done. They are hard-pressed to understand that when you highlight a problem you should be able to find a solution or, if you are unable to do it, at least back a solution. They go around wringing their hands 24/7 about cost-of-living increases and pressures but then vote against the schoolkids bonus. When you are worried about jobs in the steel industry, you do not vote against a steel transformation plan. When you visit factories, slipping on your own crocodile tears about jobs, you do not go and cut $500 million of industry assistance or, worse still, sneer at efforts to protect 46,000 auto jobs in this country. We have had a number of them say, 'Why should we be defending an industry that's gone?'

There they are, writing off that industry, claiming it is not worth saving. That is what they are saying. That is their economic philosophy. How do you say you are worried about costs of living and not support people's means to meet those costs of living by holding on to their own jobs? And now we have an MPI claiming that the coalition has concern about both costs of living and jobs. You do not talk about tax relief for business and then say you are against a company tax rate cut. You do not do it.

See this speech in context