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

As the Leader of the Opposition asked this question could I draw his attention to this fact, and it relates to both the opposition’s policy and the government’s, and that is our respective commitments to a five per cent unilateral reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 15 per cent conditional reduction and a further 25 per cent conditional reduction. What do the latter two reductions depend upon? They depend upon the outcome of the Copenhagen conference on climate change. The honourable gentleman asks the question. That is the response.

In relation to the further point that the honourable member makes as far as climate change is concerned, and the opposition’s meeting yesterday and the statement that they have issued concerning their position on climate change, could I say the government welcomes the fact that the opposition have made such a statement. Over the next six weeks of the Australian parliament we will get a chance to debate this properly in the House of Representatives and the Senate for a second time. This afternoon the climate change minister will be meeting with the opposition outlining our timetable for action on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This six-week timetable for action is to ensure both chambers have the time to consider and debate the bill in an orderly and detailed manner.

The bill will be introduced into the House on Thursday. It will be debated in the House next week and voted on in the House in the week beginning Monday, 16 November. It will be introduced in the Senate immediately after the vote in the House. It will then be voted on in the Senate in the week beginning 23 November. The government has of course offered to extend sittings this year if the opposition requires more time. We have six weeks to finally achieve action on climate change—six weeks to make up for what has been in effect 12 years of delay. And I say again to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that if further time is required for the debate on this matter then of course the government stands ready to facilitate the opposition.

Given the timetable, we look forward of course to receiving from the opposition their detailed written amendments. That is an appropriate course of action. We look forward also to receiving from the opposition their detailed costings of the amendments they have put forward. We also look forward to receiving the opposition’s analysis of the emissions consequences of the individual measures that they have put forward. The government’s legislation and associated white paper have been in the public domain since March of this year.

In relation to the cost, I would also say that the government’s primary objective has been to set in place a system that reduces carbon pollution and supports economic growth, and we believe we have got the balance right. I would draw the attention of the House to a comment made by the opposition spokesman on climate change yesterday, I believe, when he said:

Every industry will pay under the opposition’s amendments. Every industry will get a cost from the emissions trading scheme. Agriculture will get a cost because they will be paying the emissions trading scheme price on their diesel, on their electricity, on their natural gas. Every industry will be paying.

I quote the shadow minister for climate change or the spokesman on the same. That underpins the necessity for us to in fact have the costings and analysis which underpin the amendments which have been put forward by the opposition. We look forward to receiving that information.

After the significant period of delay under the previous government when it comes to taking action on climate change, we look forward to engaging in this discussion with the opposition on achieving an outcome for Australia. This is one of the world’s hottest and driest continents and, as a consequence, climate change will hit Australia hardest and earliest. Therefore, it is important that the nation come together and get an outcome for the future. In the lead up to the Copenhagen conference, which has also been the subject of a reference in the Leader of the Opposition’s question, most countries around the world will be seeking to move forward in advancing this agenda. It will be a very difficult process. But, in terms of the relevance of our actions here in Australia and the negotiations which unfold globally, there is of course a clear connection, and that is that the rest of the world will legitimately ask questions about what action we are taking in Australia in order to encourage actions by other emitting economies around the world, both developed and developing.

In reference to the Leader of the Opposition’s question about the relevance of Copenhagen to the timetabling of debate in the House and the Senate this year, I draw his attention to his own statement, in his own opinion piece in July last year, in which he said:

… “our first-hand experience in implementing … an emissions trading system” would be of considerable assistance in our international discussions and negotiations aimed at achieving an effective global … agreement.

Furthermore, Tony Abbott, the shadow minister for families, has written in today’s Australian, and I quote him directly to the Leader of the Opposition. He said:

It could indeed help the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change talks if Australia agreed in advance not only to a carbon emissions target but also on a mechanism to deliver it.

That is what the shadow minister for families said today and that is what the Leader of the Opposition said last year. Of course it is the government’s view too that the conclusion of such an agreement here in Australia on the future of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would assist international negotiations because we in Australia have a big interest in global outcomes. We also need to provide for business certainty. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.

See this speech in context