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

To quote the Executive Director of the Dusseldorp Skills Forum in the report today:

Climate change is both our greatest economic risk and, ironically, a great economic opportunity. But only if the Australian workforce is properly skilled and resourced to underpin truly sustainable industries and workplaces.

In the debate this week on climate change and an emissions-trading scheme there has been a great deal of proper emphasis on the economic cost of inaction—the cost that will be borne by the Australian economy on the part of our farmers, the tourism sector, through the consequences that flow for public health outcomes and also, to mention something that we have not touched on in this debate before, the long-term consequences for insurance premiums. All of these represent impacts that will have to be dealt with. Whether it concerns Kakadu, whether it is to do with the impact of drought on our rural commodity exports or whether it is the impact on public health, we believe that the economic case for action is clear-cut. This is an economic policy challenge. If we stick our heads in the sand, these things will come to affect us and those who follow us—our children and our grandchildren—and it will affect, long term, the health of the Australian economy.

That is why we have embarked on a course of policy action to deal with these challenges. We have committed ourselves to increasing the renewable energy target. We have committed ourselves to a half-billion dollar Renewable Energy Fund, a half-billion dollar National Clean Coal Fund and a quarter of a billion dollar Clean Business Fund. As well, we have committed ourselves to the introduction of a market based way of dealing with bringing down greenhouse gas emissions over time—an emissions-trading scheme. Our objective is clear: it is to bring down emissions over time. We are deploying these multiple areas of policy to do that. And in managing the transition to a lower carbon economy we will act in a responsible and equitable fashion to support working families, pensioners, carers and low-income Australians throughout the transition process. We will also provide support to business through the transition process.

Our position is clear and our timetable for this is clear. We are seeking to do this in a consultative fashion, not just with industry but across the wider community. It is a most complex task and, had it been begun during the 12 years when those opposite occupied the treasury bench—and begun in earnest—Australia would be better placed than it currently finds itself.

I was also asked to contrast this with policies that are very much located in the past. I draw honourable members’ attention to the clarity of the approach we are bringing to bear in this national debate on the one hand and the absolute absence of clarity on the part of those opposite. Were this not such a significant national debate, we could simply push that to one side, but this will be a major economic debate for the second half of this year and beyond because it will affect us long term.

What we have on the part of those opposite is absolute policy incoherence. I cannot make hide nor hair of it, because we have the member for Wentworth saying that he supports the inclusion of petrol in an emissions-trading scheme. He said that in July 2007 but when asked about whether it was Liberal Party policy today he said, ‘That was Howard government policy.’ I do not know what it is today, but it was Howard government policy. He then went on in an interview—I emphasise to all those opposite—that it was the whole government policy on the part of the Howard government, including presumably the current Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the cabinet which determined their approach to climate change and emissions trading in the middle of last year. It was a reminder from the member for Wentworth that they were all on board for that one.

Then we tried to seek further clarity as to where policy stands now, so we turned to the member for Flinders. The member for Flinders is even more illuminating on this question, because when asked whether emissions trading is now a part of Liberal policy for the future—when challenged on this in an interview the other day—he said that ETS is their policy. It is their policy. So we are now getting to the stage where it was Howard government policy; we do not know whether it is going to continue to be Howard government policy.

The member for Flinders, their spokesman on the environment, says it is their policy but we are not quite sure what part of it is their policy, because he was asked the critical question whether, in fact, fuel should be left out. This is the debate, and those opposite, by virtue of their questions in parliament today, are implying that fuel should be left out. That is the fear campaign they have launched. So here, in the ultimate clarification of policy, the member for Flinders, their spokesman on the environment, was asked this clear-cut question:

So you are clearly arguing that fuel should be left out?

Answer from Mr Hunt:

No, we are going to make a final decision in due course ...

So we are not sure whether they are going to have an emissions-trading scheme. Some say that it was Howard government policy; some say it still is Liberal Party policy in opposition. But on the question of the inclusion of petrol, based on all the questions I heard this week, I thought we could assume that it was out. Now we think that—at least on the current formulation of the leadership—but, no, the member for Flinders says, ‘We’re going to make a final decision in due course.’ It would be good if we had some clarity on this, so in further search of clarity on this question—

See this speech in context