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

It is a deep irony that at the same time we are seeing a carbon price and an emissions-trading scheme introduced in a province in China we get this question from those opposite, who used to believe in an emissions-trading scheme but no longer believe in it. Of course, we on this side of the House understand that an emissions-trading scheme is the most efficient way to price carbon. We understand that you cannot be a prosperous economy in the 21st century unless you are substantially powered by renewable energy. Of course, a carbon price for a fixed period moving to a floating price is exactly the way to go. That has been all of the advice we have received and it will stand this country in good stead for years and years to come.

In contrast to the policy of those opposite, their direct action policy, which will cost every household $1,200 on the budget bottom line—$1,200 going out of households—what we have done is put a price on the largest polluters in our economy, provided assistance to those who are affected by that and ensured a future for our country in renewable energy. Of course, it is deeply ironic that this question should be asked today when forces within the coalition are talking about getting rid of the renewable energy target as well. I could not think of anything more disruptive to our future prosperity or to our economy in the first term than such a reckless act as that. That is why they do not have the support of the business community in terms of their wrecking ball tactics when it comes to the renewable energy target.

We are proud that we have priced carbon. We are proud that we have taken action against dangerous climate change. There is a very clear choice in this parliament. Everyone on this side understands the importance of dealing with dangerous climate change, putting in place the most cost-effective method to price carbon to secure our prosperity for the future.

See this speech in context