Mr SWAN (Deputy Prime Minister) (3:45 PM) —We have just heard from a political conman who does not have the guts to take any difficult decisions. He behaves like a political faith-healer, who thinks he can simply wave his arms and every problem will simply go away. Electricity prices: no problem.

Mr Pyne —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the Speaker has already ruled the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister out of order during question time, and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw it now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to assist the House by withdrawing.

Mr SWAN —Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. He behaves like a faith-healer, who somehow pretends that if he waves his arms—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Could the Deputy Prime Minister withdraw using the words, please.

Mr SWAN —I did, Mr Deputy Speaker; I withdraw. He behaves like a political faith-healer pretending that he can solve any problem. If he stands up in the House and says he can solve it, he can solve it. Electricity prices would be going down if he were in power, according to the Leader of the Opposition. He can do something fundamental, he says, to reduce prices across the board. This is nonsense. This is fairyland stuff. This stuff is la-la land politics and la-la land economics.

I can see the embarrassment on the faces of many opposite who know the emptiness of what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. Like all conmen, he will be found out in time. He wants to slide into the prime ministership of this country by demonstrating that he has absolutely no economic expertise whatsoever. Difficult problems such as climate change, such as dealing with a global recession and such as responding to floods require difficult decisions. What this Leader of the Opposition has proved during the global recession, during the floods in Queensland and during this debate is that he cannot be trusted in times of crisis and he most certainly cannot be trusted in times of challenge. He simply does not have the expertise, he does not have the economic knowledge and he does not have the temperament to deal with these challenges like a national leader does need to deal with these challenges.

The fact is the business community of this country absolutely understands the need for a price on carbon, for business certainty. It goes to the very core of our future prosperity. In the past in this country Labor governments have had the guts to take tough decisions, to take decisions which are hard politically. But we have done it in the long-term interests of economic reform and of wealth creation. Floating the dollar, bringing down the tariff wall, enterprise bargaining and competition policy are all great reforms of previous Labor governments. But the big reform that is required in the 21st century to cope with the biggest market failure in the history of the globe is to put a price on carbon, because the failure to price carbon has meant that it has been omitted in ways in which it should not be and it is gradually poisoning our planet. We have a responsibility to deal with it, not just an environmental responsibility but an economic responsibility. It is a great economic challenge.

Economists around the world from both left and right, governments from both left and right and think tanks from both left and right all understand the importance of putting a price on carbon, but not the Leader of the Opposition. I know at least half of those opposite understand the importance of a price on carbon. After all, they voted for it in the last leadership contest within the Liberal Party. They voted for a price on carbon, which is why the member for Wentworth was so explicit in his interview on BBC television when he reminded the interviewer that he only lost by one vote. What he was simply saying is a carbon emissions trading scheme in this country was not implemented because of one vote in the House of Representatives in the Liberal and Nationals party room. That is what it came down to. The threat that then flows from that to this country’s prosperity into the future is indeed substantial.

Of course, there is a furious debate about this, and so there should be. It is a very important economic decision. It is one that we have argued for long and hard for a long period of time. Following the last election, we thought it was our responsibility to get the price of carbon in place, working with the composition of this parliament, and that is what we have done. We do not apologise for that. We understand there will be political pain associated with it. But that is the right thing to do by the country.

I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition thinks of companies like Shell, Origin Energy, Santos or BHP Billiton, but they are very, very big investors in this country. They are responsible for a large number of jobs in our economy and they are making more and more investments. But the Leader of the Opposition comes in here and talks of anyone who is supporting a carbon price as if they are somehow irresponsible. The irresponsible person in this House is the Leader of the Opposition, who is wrecking business certainty in this country not just by opposing a carbon price but by now saying to the people of Australia and to the international investment community he will repeal it if it is passed. That is a very substantial threat to investment in our community, and it is absolutely reckless for the Leader of the Opposition to make that statement and for the Liberal Party to talk about it in those terms. What we do know is that he will be giving to subsequent generations, if we do not act, an even bigger burden of paying the price for climate change. He is transferring the cost to subsequent generations, to our children and to our grandchildren.

That is why we need to be brave now, why we need to be firm now: to put in place the arrangements that will assist in getting this in place, so they will benefit. The cost of inaction is far greater, far greater, than the cost of action. This is not something that the Leader of the Opposition understands but it is something that the investment community understand. Our largest companies understand. They certainly understand that we have to become much more carbon efficient. What this requires in particular is investment in cleaner energy and of course renewable energy, particularly when it comes to our power sector. What appalled me in the comments from the Leader of the Opposition today was his ignorance of the fact that the failure to invest in that sector is what is driving electricity prices upward and that, if we do not deal with certainty of investment in that sector, they will go higher and higher, and—

Mr Hunt —That is completely false. It is not remotely true.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! The honourable member for Flinders will resume his seat.

Mr SWAN —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:

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:

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.

Ms O’Dwyer —We cannot wait!

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order!

Mr SWAN —Then we had his ridiculous discussion of the MRRT. This is a mob—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The members for Higgins and Kooyong ought not to be interjecting from outside their seats.

Mr SWAN —This is a mob of people who, at a time when our mining companies have record profitability, some making super profits, have the view that the mining industry is paying too much tax. What planet do they live on? The mining industry is paying too much tax! So when we put in place a regime which picks up the resource rents and uses that money to cut corporate taxes, they oppose it. The once great Liberal Party have come to that. It is just unbelievable that they could oppose a revenue stream from a resource rent tax on the mining industry, particularly one which is going to assist the savings of people on low incomes, build infrastructure and give a corporate tax cut. ‘Oh, no, we can’t have that. We should give the miners more money. They should pay less tax.’ Nothing demonstrates more than that how incompetent and bizarre those opposite have become in the bitterness of their opposition.

We also saw this kind of display when it came to the flood levy. Before then, there had never been a levy that Tony Abbott did not support. He supported six levies while the Howard government was in—never a levy he did not support. But then a levy came along that was for Queenslanders and Victorians, and he voted it down. It was a modest levy, far less than any other that he had voted for previously. Yet again, this demonstrates how irresponsible and reckless the Leader of the Opposition is.

They have another big lie about tax. That mob opposite was the highest taxing government in Australian history. They got the tax to GDP share up to 24.1 per cent. The other lie is their pretence that a global recession never happened. They pretend it did not happen and talk about the fact that we should not have gone into deficit to fund the stimulus. But what if we had not done that? Where would Australia be today? Unemployment would be far higher. Tens of thousands of businesses would have hit the wall. We acted responsibly and, all the way through that, we got more of this opposition. They opposed us every step of the way, once again proving that they are simply not capable or up to the mark when it comes to modern economic management. When this country was threatened by recession, we put in place a world-class stimulus which produced world-class results for Australia. The reason that unemployment at the moment is at five per cent is that the actions of this government put in place the correct economic policy to support our economy at a time of need. And we were opposed every step of the way. We were opposed when we put in place the bank guarantees that were absolutely fundamental and we were opposed on the stimulus, because they are not up to handling the big challenges that Australia faces. All of that is now surfacing in this very important debate.

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about Treasury modelling as though somehow what we are doing now is absolutely identical to what was done in the CPRS. I do recommend reading the CPRS material—and he did use some of it—but we have not yet taken the decisions on coverage in this emissions trading scheme. So there is no way anybody could make the sorts of assertions they have been making about cost impacts.

But there is one big difference between us and those on the other side of the House: we will provide the assistance to households that are affected. There is no plan for assistance by the opposition to provide for all of those people who are being hit by rising electricity prices right now. We will do the right thing by the people of Australia, the right thing by our economy in the long term and the right thing by our industry so that we can put in place the reforms which will produce the next generation of prosperity in this country and maximise all of the opportunities that should flow to this country from the mining boom. We will get the investment in renewable energy that is required. All of these things are essential decisions for Australia. They are the hard decisions and they are the decisions that the Liberal Party has not got the guts to take.