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

Again I draw the member for Goldstein’s attention to the fact that, when it comes to the aluminium smelting industry, it was listed in the CPRS white paper as one of the activities likely to receive 90 per cent free permits. We understand on this side of the House the challenges of transition. That is why we have embarked upon the scheme that we have, together with the other elements of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which those opposite choose to ignore in their partisan presentation of the debate today.

Again, I go back to the whole question of consistency. Our approach, through the green paper, through the white paper, through the draft legislation, is about getting the balance right between what we do on climate change and how we support the economy and jobs. Again, the flip, flop, flap from those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, is about starting dates—whether it is 2010, 2011 or 2012, depending on the season—and should it be conditional international action or should it not? The answer changes all the way through.

But then we come to what I thought was a remarkable statement by the Leader of the Opposition over the weekend where he says this:

The emissions trading scheme is just one tool in the climate policy tool box. Well-designed it is a useful tool, but it is not a necessary tool at all.

That is the Leader of the Opposition, 16 March 2009. Roll the clock back to 21 May 2008. Mr Turnbull says:

The emissions trading scheme is the central mechanism to decarbonise our economy.

So nine months ago the emissions trading scheme is the central mechanism to decarbonise the economy and nine months later, because of some political pressures from the right wing of his party, he says, ‘Well, it is just one tool in climate policy and it is not a necessary tool.’ What rank inconsistency and hypocrisy.

See this speech in context