Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. Why is it important for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to pass parliament and what is delaying action on climate change?

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course it is extremely important that the parliament pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation so that we can begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our own economy and play the most constructive role possible in the international community. Time is pressing for the passage of the government’s legislation. The Copenhagen conference is now less than 90 days away and it is important that the legislation pass before then, not only so that we can have a target established in the law to reduce carbon pollution in this country but also to have a means to achieve the reductions. After today, there are only four weeks of sittings left before the Copenhagen conference, and the government will be reintroducing this legislation with that time frame well and truly in mind. That means that time is running out for the coalition on this fundamentally important public policy question.

I confirm once again that the government will sit down and negotiate with the opposition if they can produce a set of amendments that reflect the policy concerns that they have. But they must have a policy and they must agree to a proposed set of amendments. The government cannot do that for them as Senator Minchin has been suggesting. They have to get their act together and develop a policy with specific amendments to the legislation that they are seeking.

But, of course, as is evidenced again today, the outlook for that development on the opposition side of politics is not good. Multiple positions are being expressed on climate change. It is truly astonishing. It is a very rare thing in Australian politics for such extraordinary ill-discipline and disunity to be on display by a major political party. The Nationals and the Liberals have completely split over this issue, and Senator Joyce is running the leadership on this issue for the National Party and, apparently at times, for the coalition. Senator Joyce is making ridiculous propositions, proposing homespun messages that defy the international scientific evidence and consensus on the need for taking action on climate change. He has been positing $150 legs of lamb and other ridiculous propositions. The position that the National Party has been adopting is at potentially massive cost to the rural and agricultural communities that the National Party purports to represent. It is an utterly irresponsible position.

Senator Joyce has walked all over the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the Nationals—walked all over him. Only two or three months ago the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party stood up and said they were committed to the government’s targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. That is no longer the case. The National Party has dumped that position.

For once I have to say that I agree with the member for Sturt—as painful as it may be—because this morning on Sky television the member for Sturt indicated that the Nationals are no longer at the table and that their policy position is bizarre. That was his admission. But, of course, the National Party is not alone in that. The Liberals are in a shemozzle on this as well. Over the last two days we have had a party room rebellion fully reported to the media, including the speakers list; at least three contradictory positions on amendments to the legislation; the member for Higgins out again in the media, making a typically self-indulgent and destructive contribution, opposing emissions trading; and the member for O’Connor continuing to run an insurgency campaign, asserting that a majority of the coalition party room are opposed to emissions trading. The member for Goldstein, not in the chamber today, has taken a completely contradictory position—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is relevance. This long story is not relevant.

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

The member for Murray will resume her seat. The minister is responding to the question.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the same time that the member for O’Connor is asserting that a majority of the coalition party room is opposed to emissions trading, the member for Goldstein is reported in the Australian today saying that a vast majority of coalition MPs and senators in fact support amending the CPRS. Who is to ever know who is right about the coalition political and policy position on this issue? If it is a majority of coalition MPs that support negotiating amendments with the government, it must be a very silent majority indeed. They should take responsibility on this critical public policy issue and put forward specific amendments, propose them to the government and negotiate.