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

I thank the honourable member for her question, as I know that climate change has been on the minds of many members of this House on both sides of the chamber today. It was certainly a matter for discussion within the Australian Labor Party party room today, as I understand it has been within the coalition party room. Businesses around the world agree and are calling for action at the national and international level, because what businesses want is business certainty for the future. The Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change has called for an ambitious, robust and equitable global deal on climate change that responds to the scale and urgency of the crisis facing the world today. In fact the group—which represents 700 companies around the world from the US, the EU, Japan, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Russia, China and South America—signed up for the communique, including such companies as the National Australia Bank, Insurance Australia Group, Lend Lease, Westpac, Woolworths and Linfox. The group released the Copenhagen Communique on Climate Change, which stated: ‘The one thing we do not have is time. Delay is not an option.’ These comments have been reflected at home as well, including by the Chief Executive of Australian Industry Group when she said, most recently:

Many of our members are telling us that they are holding off making investments until there is a greater degree of clarity around domestic climate change legislation.

The government is committed to action on climate change at home and abroad. We are obviously engaged with our counterparts around the world on the negotiation of an agreement for Copenhagen as we are active here in Australia in seeking passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation through the Australian Senate. As a sign of good faith, as I indicated to the House yesterday, to the negotiations we have underway with the opposition, the government is prepared to exclude agricultural emissions from coverage under the CPRS. This reflected carefully upon observations made by many members in their contribution to this debate, including our good friend and colleague the member for Warringah, who stated recently, ‘Our minimum conditions are that it must exclude agriculture.’ Also our good friend and colleague the member for Groom has said:

Agriculture is obviously a key issue. I would say quite openly that if agriculture is not included in the package the party room won’t agree to carry the amendments.

I say to those opposite that we have been entirely mindful of some of the internal political realities that those opposite have had to confront in their good faith negotiations with the government. We further welcome statements made, as reported today in the Sydney Morning Herald, again by our good friend the member for Groom, who is the opposition spokesman and negotiator on the CPRS, in which he said, ‘I’m still optimistic of a deal.’ I thank the member for Groom for providing leadership on this question because we know that these negotiations are complex—the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is complex—and we know that these are difficult matters to resolve. But, of course, the nation must resolve them. I also note the comments made in the debate in the House of Representatives yesterday by the member for Kooyong. I quote the member for Kooyong, who I am sure obtains the support of all good Liberals there opposite:

The response to climate change needs to be a global response and it is essential that Australia makes its contribution to addressing world emissions by implementing an emissions trading scheme that will impose a price on carbon.

That was well said by the member for Kooyong and, of course, he reflects the historical position on climate change over the years from the Leader of the Opposition and other spokesmen from those opposite. We have now entered into the final two weeks of sittings in the Senate, which are to be devoted to this legislation. The legislation was passed by the House of Representatives yesterday and will be introduced into the Senate today. There will be opportunity in the Senate for every senator to speak on this debate—full opportunity. There will be time for every amendment to be considered in detail in this debate. Further, the government is willing to extend parliamentary sittings to accommodate any further contributions to this debate and I know members of the press gallery nod in agreement as they would like this debate to continue.

I say also to those opposite, to the House and to the country at large that we have noticed with concern, however, the following actions which were taken by the coalition half an hour or so ago in the Senate, and this I would draw to the House’s attention. The government moved today to extend hours to allow comprehensive consideration of the CPRS. The coalition just voted against the motion in the Senate. As a result, the Senate will not be sitting extended hours to debate the CPRS bill tonight. So, after a year or two in preparation, those are the circumstances we are now confronted with.

As a further note of concern, and I would again draw this to the House’s attention, the coalition then opposed the commencement of the CPRS debate today. As a result the CPRS debate will not be commencing today in the Senate. We have three days left this week; one has now gone. We have four days left next week to debate what is arguably one of the most important pieces of legislation for the nation, for the economy and for the year ahead, and this is the advice that we have so far received. I hope to be advised by the Leader of the Opposition that there has been some error on the part of those in the other place. Given the importance of this legislation, it is concerning that the coalition in the Senate appears to be acting in a way which is inconsistent with what we have found to be fruitful, good-faith negotiations here in the House. I look forward to an alternative view being expressed by the Leader of the Opposition.

See this speech in context