Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the fiasco at Copenhagen, why is the government still insisting on foisting a great big new tax on everything on the Australian people by reintroducing its emissions trading scheme legislation today when the rest of the world is not moving in the same direction?

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

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. It is useful to reflect on the number of positions that she has had on this matter in recent times. In the Howard government, she was all for emissions trading; five weeks ago, she was all for emissions trading and global action; and today, suddenly, she is all against—full throttle forward, full throttle in reverse.

The question that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked is about the impact of Copenhagen. I want to make three points about what was achieved at Copenhagen. The first is that all Australians would agree that the outcome in Copenhagen was disappointing. Everyone across the world accepts that fact, except that there are only a limited number of people in the world who laugh at that fact. The mood of the nation and across the world is: how do we act together to bring down greenhouse gas emissions? Those opposite may take a perverse delight in the problems which were there for everybody to see at the Copenhagen conference on climate change as we tried to forge an agreement across 190 nations from various political systems and different economic structures across the world.

The second point I would make in response to the deputy leader’s question is this: we—that is, the gathering of nations at Copenhagen—for the first time agreed in a global accord that temperature increases should be kept within two degrees Centigrade. That is the first time that that has happened. It therefore provides guidance for the future. In the past that did not exist; it now exists.

The second change which occurred in Copenhagen was that for the first time there were developed and developing countries indicating that they would submit targets and commitments of action. In the past this was exclusively seen as a developed country task. That is no longer the case. The third achievement at Copenhagen was that, as a result of Copenhagen and the discussions which went on there, a global monitoring system would be developed to ensure that those who commit actually do what they say they are going to do. These are three changes to the world subsequent to December as opposed to what occurred prior to December.

The other part of the deputy leader’s question goes to Australia’s own efforts. I simply say to her—and I think it is consistent with the position which has been adopted by various people opposite in recent times—that our government’s position is that we will do no more and no less than the rest of the global community.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Can I say to those opposite as they seek to interject: their targets are five, 15 and 25. The government’s targets are five, 15 and 25. That is our position and that is the opposition’s position. We have developed a credible mechanism to achieve that target. What we have seen from the proposal put out today by the Leader of the Opposition is something which, frankly, looks as if it simply does not add up or stack up in achieving that environmental outcome.