House debates

Tuesday, 2 February 2010

Questions without Notice

Emissions Trading Scheme

2:39 pm

Photo of Jim TurnourJim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline why the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the best way to tackle climate change?

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question, because he represents a part of the Great Barrier Reef which, if we were to see temperature rises go through the roof, would ultimately be destroyed. That is not just an environmental catastrophe; it is also an economic catastrophe because we have tens of thousands of Queenslanders employed in the tourism industry on the Great Barrier Reef.

I noticed the other day, by the way, that the Leader of the Opposition said that, if the worst case scenario put out by scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were to come to pass and we were to see global temperature increases of the order of four degrees Centigrade, it did not represent any big moral challenge for the future. Can I say that, if we saw temperature increases like that, as far as the Barrier Reef is concerned, frankly, it would be destroyed beyond recognition. That is why I welcome the question from the member for Leichhardt.

We all sat there today in anticipation of what alternative plan would be put forward by the opposition on climate change. It has been a long time coming. The government put forward its proposal at the end of 2008, and until about five weeks ago it had the majority support of those opposite, and then they removed the then Leader of the Opposition. When we listen to what was put forward today, it was a pretty interesting presentation indeed. The Leader of the Opposition has described climate change as ‘absolute crap’. Those are his words, not mine. He said that climate change is absolute crap and he has confirmed that view today in that the proposal he has put forward is nothing more than a climate con job. This is a climate con job, absolute and final. It does less, it costs more and, by definition, it will mean higher taxes. Let us go through these in order.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Those opposite seem to guffaw about costs. If you go to the budget papers, which we have produced, you will find the impact on budget of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is something like $3.3 billion across the decade. Those opposite in their own costings, which have yet to be tested, admit to a budget impact of $10 billion—three times that which has been advanced by the government—and they say over there that this is therefore proof positive that their proposal will cost less than ours. Let us go to the entrails of the climate change con—the climate con job put forward by the Leader of the Opposition today. There are three big problems with it.

Photo of Christopher PyneChristopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

The first is that it does not work and the reason it does not work, as the member for Sturt knows by his embarrassed interjection, is that the Leader of the Opposition puts no cap on carbon; he puts no cap on carbon pollution. On the one hand you say you are going to reduce carbon pollution but on the other hand you say, ‘I’m putting forward a plan which doesn’t actually put a cap on how much carbon pollution you allow out into the atmosphere,’—failure No. 1. Failure No. 2 is this: what he does through this plan is leave the big polluters alone and slug taxpayers instead. Not only does it cost more than the government’s scheme; he leaves the big polluters to one side and says, ‘You’re okay, don’t worry about that,’ and then goes on to say, ‘For you taxpayers who will be copping extra taxation as a result of this and possibly extra prices as well, we will work that through.’ Those individual taxpayers and consumers will not get one dollar of compensation. That is problem No. 2—in other words, let the big polluters go free and slug Australian working families as taxpayers. That is the second problem. The third problem with this plan, this proposal, this climate con job is this: it is totally unfunded. We have been waiting for this alternative plan for—how long? They costed it at $10 billion but cannot even summon the collective honesty to put forward how they would offset that in their own budget numberings.

This is the absolute core set of problems with what those opposite have advanced in terms of their alternative climate change plan. It does not work, it puts no cap on carbon, it lets all the big polluters go absolutely free, it slugs taxpayers and working families as a result and it does not even bother to attempt to fund the policy. That is the core of what has been put forward today. It all comes off the back of a Leader of the Opposition who does not believe any of this in the first place. If you go out there and publicly say that climate change is absolute crap, what do you think people conclude when you put out a piece of paper saying that you are actually serious about it? That is why people do not trust the Leader of the Opposition on climate change: because he does not believe that it is actually happening.

If you look at the evolution of his positions on this, he supported an emissions trading scheme when he was a member of the Howard government. He said then that climate change was absolute crap. He said that the Liberals should support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme unamended. He then said they should support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme amended. He then said he totally opposed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. On top of all that, he said to the former Leader of the Opposition, ‘Don’t worry about me, Malcolm, I am just a political weathervane when it comes to climate change.’ The Leader of the Opposition has changed his position on the emissions trading scheme probably more often than he has changed his undies. It has gone on and on and on. One day after another we have a different position. Can I just say to the Leader of the Opposition: if you are going to come up with a policy, fund it, cost it, make it environmentally credible against these three most basic tests—fail, fail and fail.

2:46 pm

Photo of Greg HuntGreg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is also to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the recent COSBOA small business survey which shows that the majority of small businesses are concerned about the government’s $114 billion emissions trading scheme, described in three lines and one dot point in their pre-election policy, pushing up their costs. In light of his massive gas and electricity price rises, will the Prime Minister tell the average dry-cleaning business how much more it will cost them to run their business with the addition of his new tax on everything?

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

We have had a spectacle of policy consistency today—those up on their feet today attacking the emissions trading scheme, five weeks ago out there supporting it, cuddling up. Why is it that those opposite cannot figure out that, if you are going to be believed on climate change, you actually have to stand for something and stick to your views? Half of those opposite voted for the position put forward by the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth; half of them didn’t. But when more than half of them eventually got behind him, what did they do? They rolled the leader. What do you think that says to the Australian community?

Photo of Mrs Bronwyn BishopMrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: I note your comments with regard to preambles and questions, but even your liberal interpretation cannot save that pathetic answer which is in no way relevant at all.

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The thing that I can agree on with the member for Mackellar is that it is important that we take into context the preambles. It does give the opportunity for a wide debate, but I think that the Prime Minister will relate his material to the question, and the Prime Minister has the call.

Photo of Kevin RuddKevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The honourable member asked a question about the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on electricity and gas prices. Those I can refer the honourable member to are of course contained in Treasury’s documentation. On electricity it is projected that electricity prices would rise by seven per cent in 2011-12 and gas prices would rise by four per cent in 2011-12. That has been on the public record for a long, long time. I also draw the attention of those opposite to two things. The first is the compensation regime which is contained within the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for households, a compensation regime which those opposite do not seem to match by one single dollar. The second is the broader support measures that we put in place in our response to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for business. I am so glad that the member for Flinders has asked this question as my attention has been drawn to something which I think the House might be interested in. It is along these lines. I quote from a university thesis:

Underlying any analysis of an appropriate response to controlling pollution is a philosophical choice as to which party should ultimately bear responsibility for the cost of waste minimisation. It will be our contention throughout the paper that in contrast to the current Victorian legislative structure which still perceives environmental controls as essentially a community responsibility and burden the market system is a preferable regime as it better ensures that the polluter bears full responsibility for the cost of his or her conduct.

The university thesis has an author and the author is Greg Hunt—the considered intellectual philosophical work of the member for Flinders arguing for a market based system which ensures that the polluter pays. Where lies consistency, Greg? Out the door, out the window, right outside and down the gurgler.

Photo of Harry JenkinsHarry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will refer his remarks through the chair and refer to members by their titles. The member for Throsby will get the call for a question, but the Leader of the Opposition has risen for the call.