Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:13): I thank the member for Braddon for that question. We on this side of the House have understood for a long time the dangers of ignoring climate change in terms of our environment and our economy. We have understood the need to tackle climate change in the most cost-efficient way possible. We also understand that, if you put a price on carbon pollution, you have to assist households and you have to support jobs. We are putting a price on carbon pollution, to be paid by up to 1,000 of our largest polluters. We simply cannot afford to put this challenge in the too hard-basket for any longer. Certainty demands action. That is why we are seeing such strong support from the business community for a price on carbon pollution. Overnight, 55 companies have come out in support of putting a price on carbon pollution—companies such as GE, Grocon, AGL, IKEA and so on. This is what the CEO of Grocon had to say: Personally, I’m in favour of a cost on carbon. As I look forward in Australia, I see us at the threshold of some fantastic times and I get disillusioned when I see some critical decisions that need to be made for our future getting bogged down in politics. He is absolutely correct. Of course that is why organisations such as the BCA and the AiG are supporting a price on carbon, and that is why some of our biggest energy companies are also supporting a price on carbon—companies such as Santos, Rio Tinto, BHP, Origin Energy, Gloucester Coal and so on. That is why on this side of the House we understand that we must make this transition to a clean energy future. As we make that transition we do have to provide support to households. Nine in 10 households will receive a combination of tax cuts, increased payments and pension increases. Of course we will provide additional assistance to those on the lowest incomes. All of this stands in stark contrast to the approach of others who have a policy of subsidies for polluters and, of course, a policy which will not provide any assistance to households. The Leader of the Opposition was on The7.30 Report a couple of nights ago and he finally admitted that his policy will result in a direct slug on households—a direct slug of $720 per household. Of course that money will go directly to the biggest polluters in the country. You cannot put a slug of $720 on households and then pretend that you care about cost-of-living pressures in our community. The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The level of chatter was too high and, from the grins, I have seen a set-up before. I did spend 11 long years in opposition and I know the tactics. I indicate that I might have to choose some of the people in leadership positions who might take the rap for the rest. The Treasurer has the call. Mr SWAN: You cannot say that you care about cost-of-living pressures when you are going to rip back tax cuts. You certainly cannot say that you care about cost-of-living pressures when you are going to slug households $720. Of course we all know that the Leader of the Opposition has no respect for economists and those on his backbench have no respect for his economics as well because we have a new underground economic policy group, which has been formed by the member for Higgins, because they are so aghast at the lack of any alternative economic policy from the opposition benches. It is going to take a lot more than dusting off Work Choices and promising unfunded tax cuts to give this Leader of the Opposition some economic credibility. (Time expired)