Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his previous answers where he has referred to the United States emissions trading legislation, the Waxman-Markey bill, which has passed the United States House of Representatives but has not yet passed the US Senate. Will the Prime Minister advise this House of the differences between his emissions trading scheme, his CPRS, and the approach of Waxman-Markey to agriculture and why he considers his own CPRS’s approach to agriculture to be superior to that pursued in the United States?

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

The honourable member will be familiar with the arrangements which are outlined in the government’s white paper and the statements made since the introduction of the government’s legislation. In the government’s legislation concerning agriculture, one question goes specifically to our treatment of agriculture, which is that after a period of review we will consider the introduction of agriculture into the scheme in a few years time—I think 2015 is the option we have laid on the table. Secondly, the honourable member asks about the contrast between the Waxman-Markey bill and its treatment of agriculture and other matters and what we have done here. They have constantly said across the board that the US scheme offers greater benefits for industry. Can I simply draw the honourable member’s attention to this: the Waxman bill caps free permits at 15 per cent of total permits and the share of free permits will decline over time and, secondly, under the CPRS we will give around 25 per cent of total permits free to emissions-intensive trade-exposed and that share will rise as the sector grows. That is the first point.

The second is that those opposite constantly talk about the relative generosity of the Waxman-Markey scheme. The thresholds for assistance are substantially higher under that scheme than they are for the CPRS—2,500 tonnes per US$1 million of revenue—meaning assistance in the Waxman bill is concentrated to a narrow range of industries and is actually contemplated under the Australian legislation. He should really know what he is talking about when he phrases these questions.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! Has the Prime Minister concluded?

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

Yes.