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. I refer the Prime Minister to a speech last year in which he said that failure to act immediately on climate change represented ‘absolute political cowardice and absolute failure of leadership’. Given that the Prime Minister has junked the government’s signature climate change policy, is he admitting to being a failed leader and a political coward?

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

I welcome each and every question from the opposition on the question of climate change, because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition just stood up and addressed the parliament and asked this on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, who has this as his core belief on climate change: that climate change is absolute crap. That is his view: that climate change is absolute crap, to which he has now added the proposition that, in fact, when you look at the history of climate change, the world was hotter in Jesus’ time.

Can I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that, as she asks this question on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, she also does so on behalf of a party which is now dominated by climate change sceptics. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, through his deputy, that this government looks forward to fighting the next election on climate change, against those opposite. We look forward to fighting it on climate change at the next election because we accept climate change science; those opposite reject climate change science. We, on this side of the House, have ratified Kyoto; those on that side of the House refused to ratify Kyoto. We, on this side of the House, boosted the renewable energy target to 20 per cent; those opposite failed to do so. We, on this side of the House, negotiated an emissions trading scheme in good faith; those opposite, led by the Leader of the Opposition, initially supported it—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

The member for Mayo and others in the chamber might take a deep breath and just sit quietly. Certainly, I had an expectation that those on my left might want to see the end of the day’s proceedings from within the chamber.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only 51 per cent!

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

Order! The Leader of the House is not assisting. The suggestion to take a deep breath was, of course, to the Leader of the House, as it was to everybody, but it is clear that people think that they can run the House from their places by interjecting on everybody in the chamber. That is not allowed under the standing orders and if people really want to try my patience today, they have picked the wrong day.

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

Here in this parliament we face the extraordinary spectacle of those opposite, having voted down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, now blaming the Australian government for not passing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That is the ultimate irony of the proposition which they put. When the member for Wentworth negotiated the passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said, ‘This country needs a carbon pollution reduction scheme.’ He said that it needed an ETS now, and then he spotted the political opportunity to assassinate the member for Wentworth, and that is what he then proceeded to do. On one occasion they voted it down; on a second occasion they voted against it, and then they did so again.

At Copenhagen, the rest of the world sought to bring about an agreement; here in Australia they barracked in the hope that Copenhagen would fail. The government, notwithstanding the opposition from those opposite, remains committed to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, we intend to get on with the job of ensuring that we can bring about necessary action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But there is one thing we cannot change, and that is that this Leader of the Opposition stood up and assassinated his predecessor—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat again. Earlier on this week, people on my left asked for the withdrawal of comments that, in a political debate sense, I thought did not require withdrawal. But, if people think that language that would seem strange in the playground, such as ‘coward’ and ‘gutless wonder’, are part of the debate by way of interjection, I am sorry: they are wrong. I think that, given that they are senior members of the opposition, they might have thought about their comments.

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

This government, on the question of climate change, has confronted two realities. Firstly, those opposite decided to U-turn completely in supporting the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. They voted it down in the Senate and the Greens voted it down in the Senate. The second thing which occurred was that, at the Copenhagen conference, global action on climate change was not as substantial as the rest of the international community had hoped. As a consequence, if the government is re-elected, we will reintroduce the ETS legislation at the end of the current Kyoto commitment period. That is why we would do so, on the basis that global action on climate change is clear.

On that note, I would draw the attention of the opposition and the parliament at large to reports today contained in the American media about the impending content of the American Power Act. The American Power Act also deals with the same question of climate change. It also deals with the question of putting a cap on carbon pollution, making polluters pay and compensating households. I would draw their attention also to the fact that, when it comes to the passage of this bill, the reports contained in the US media today indicate that the measures would become operational from 2013. That is the commencement of the new period subsequent to the Kyoto commitment period. So I draw to the attention of those opposite that the rest of the world is acting on climate change.

The outcome from Copenhagen was not as substantial as those of us who participated in that conference wanted. The government’s ETS legislation has been voted down by those opposite and by the Greens in the Senate. The government remains committed to its greenhouse gas reduction targets. The government remains committed to the principle of an emissions trading scheme as the best way of bringing about greenhouse gas reductions and the cheapest way of doing so.

But my challenge to those opposite, if they have any skerrick of commitment on the question of climate change, is to answer this: how is it that, in the 21st century, you could support this Leader of the Opposition, who says that the world was hotter in Jesus’ time? How could you actually hold to a belief, in defiance of total science around the world, that somehow in the last 2000 years the world has become cooler, not warmer? How could you stand behind a leader who says that the industrial revolution, in effect, did not happen? The core divide between us is that this Leader of the Opposition does not believe in climate change. He has said it is ‘absolute crap’. He has rejected the science and he now tells us that it was hotter in the time of Jesus of Nazareth than it is today. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: that view is positively weird.