Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline for the House the importance of giving business the certainty it needs to play its part in reducing carbon pollution?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is one hour and 16 minutes into question time and not a single question from those opposite on action on climate change—not a single question on the topic which dominated the joint party room this morning amid such a celebration of party unity—or cross-party unity, as I have heard it described. What the Australian nation saw today was the Leader of the Opposition rolled in his own joint party room. What we saw today was, once again—as on Work Choices, so today on climate change—the Leader of the Opposition rolled by the ideological hard right-wing of his own party and the National Party. The Leader of the Opposition came to the leadership of the Liberal Party rolling his predecessor—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order—that of relevance. The question related to certainty on climate change.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The relevance to certainty on climate change goes to what happens in the Senate through the votes of the National Party and the Liberal Party. That is why this question is of direct relevance to business certainty, certainty on the actions to be taken at Copenhagen, actions which would be necessary to provide Australia with hope on acting on climate change, to help save the Barrier Reef, to help save Kakadu, to take necessary action for the future—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and those opposite scoff at that possibility. The Leader of the Opposition undertook a political campaign within the Liberal Party to roll his predecessor with one of his causes being he would be strong on climate change. He accused his predecessor of being weak on climate change. That was the political attack. What happened today was that the Leader of the Opposition was rolled in the Liberal Party party room, rolled in the joint party room, by the climate change sceptics—the self-proclaimed climate change champion rolled by the climate change sceptics. That is what happened on the part of those opposite.

Let us go to what currently constitutes the position of those opposite, given how intimidated the current leader of the Liberal Party is by the person who seeks to replace him as the leader of the Liberal Party—that is, the member for Higgins. Remember in the joint party room the member for Higgins—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order—that of relevance.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Remember the member for Higgins, who now comes to consciousness, glad that he is mentioned in the chamber, so he can participate fully in the debate. He did so in the joint party room some time ago when he said there are two things—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is relevance. On any measure the Prime Minister was not in the coalition party room, so he would not know to be able to say this at all.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question went to the importance of business acting to reduce carbon pollution. The Prime Minister will respond to the question.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The dynamics of the Liberal Party party room and the joint party room is of direct relevance to what happens in the Senate. The reason we know what happens there is that you leak it all out. That is why we all know—and we know within an hour of it occurring. As my colleague said, there are in fact many emissions from those opposite when it comes to the way in which they leak from their own party room.

The next leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Higgins, said in the party room recently that the two things they have got to do is stand against action on climate change and support Work Choices. What have we seen in the most recent few months? Precisely that course of action being supported here in the chamber. The leadership of the current Leader of the Opposition has been fundamentally undermined by his inability to stand up to the climate change sceptics in his own party. The reason those opposite are silent during this debate is they know it to be true. It is exactly what has transpired.

Let us go to the current position of those opposite, which is that action should be deferred on climate change pending—wait for it—another review. Let us quickly go to the evolving position of the Liberal Party on this question. What did they say back in December 2007? The then spokesman said, ‘We will set both medium- and long-term targets after the Garnaut review.’ The Garnaut review was on 30 September 2008. Then they went on to say, ‘We won’t set any figures until we see the government’s modelling.’ Treasury modelling was released on 30 October 2008. Then they said, ‘We will look at what the government comes up with in its white paper and see what the Treasury modelling is when it comes out.’ Well, that was released on 15 December 2008. Then they said that they would take a position after the Pearce report was delivered—that is their own internal inquiry. The Pearce report apparently delivered its findings on 30 April 2009. Then we had the member for Goldstein say, ‘Well, we’ll finally sort out our alternative once the Senate inquiry has been concluded.’ The Senate inquiry, they have ensured, has been delayed until 15 June 2009. Then they say it is going to happen once we have a Productivity Commission inquiry. There is no fixed date. What you have here is a rolling series of excuses to underpin the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not had the courage to take on the climate change sceptics in his own party. It is an absolute failure of leadership on his part and he knows it.

What Australia is looking for at present on climate change and what the business community is looking for on climate change is certainty. They have called publicly for certainty. When you look at the statements by the Australian Industry Group and by the Business Council of Australia, they want certainty for the future, and the Leader of the Opposition in response to this call for business certainty has simply gone missing. When those in the broader Australian community want action at Copenhagen to provide Australia with some hope of appropriately helping to protect the Barrier Reef and Kakadu in the long term, the Leader of the Opposition has gone missing. All Australians wanted this Leader of the Opposition to stand up and to defy the climate change sceptics in his own party, but instead of acting in the national interest he is acting in the narrow interest of the Liberal Party all the way through this.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard an interjection from those opposite saying that this represents a misrepresentation on our part. I have gone through seven reasons they have given in the last 12 months to prevent them from taking a final position on climate change and carbon pollution reduction, and those opposite say that we are misrepresenting the facts. Those opposite had an opportunity in their party room today—most particularly the Leader of the Opposition—to show some leadership, to take a position, to actually stand up for the national interest rather than to act purely in terms of the Leader of the Opposition’s personal interest.

The moral authority of the Leader of the Opposition on climate change, and more broadly, was shredded once and for all in the joint party room today. The member for Higgins, representing the next leadership of the Liberal Party, went in there a couple of months ago and said, ‘The Liberal Party cannot support this action on climate change,’ and what we saw today was the current Leader of the Opposition buckle to that pressure. Australia demands action in the national interest and what we have seen instead is partisan action on the part of those opposite, an absolute failure of leadership and an undermining of the national interest.