Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer you to page 530 of House of Representatives Practice, which states:

With the opposition call priority is given to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition ...

I am wondering whether standing orders are being undermined if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is never allowed to ask a question.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt does not have a point of order.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: I would suggest that under standing orders that constitutes a frivolous point of order, and the member for Sturt should be dealt with—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Chief Opposition Whip should not reflect on the chair.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not reflecting on the chair. With great respect, I would like to point out that it was not the time for questions to you; it was a point of order, and I believe that it constituted a frivolous point of order and action should be taken.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the point raised by the Chief Opposition Whip. I have already ruled on the previous point of order, and I do not propose to take it any further.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the State of the environment report released today shows that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 22 per cent by 2020? Is the Prime Minister aware that, if every country’s emissions were to rise by 22 per cent, global temperatures would increase by up to four degrees, fuelling extreme weather events and bushfires, damaging Australia’s environment and leaving our children and grandchildren with a lower living standard than we currently enjoy? Prime Minister, when will you start taking responsibility for acting on climate change?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! In calling the Prime Minister, I remind the Leader of the Opposition he should direct his questions through the chair.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that the report indicated a number of things, including some of those alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition. It also outlined some key achievements in environmental management since 2001, including a fourfold increase in Commonwealth government spending on the environment; decreases in land clearing in many states, which in turn have had a positive impact on Australia’s biodiversity; advances in protection of the marine environment; generally good air quality in most capital cities; and, improved water management through the Commonwealth government’s national water reform agenda. The report also outlines key environment challenges for Australia, including pressures on some of our fisheries and population pressure on the coast; the need for continued waste reduction and recycling efforts; and, the poor condition of inland waters and coastal lakes in some parts of Australia. In the last five years, contrary to what is implied in the Leader of the Opposition’s question, the government has invested an unprecedented amount of funding in the environment—namely, $10.3 billion. That is an average additional payment of $2 billion a year.

The response of the opposition is, ‘That’s of no account. What you have to do is sign up to the present Kyoto protocol.’ The reasons we have not signed the current Kyoto protocol are manifold. One of them is that, even if everybody met their emission target, you would have a total of one per cent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Another reason—particularly important to the interests of those Australian communities that depend on the resources sector, on the coal industry—is that if we had signed the Kyoto protocol in its current form it could have put Australian industry at a competitive disadvantage. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to advocate that policy, but I am for the coalminers and the coal industry of this country. I am not going to have their great industry put at a competitive disadvantage. We need to do even more in relation to climate change. We need to invest even more heavily in clean coal technology. We also need to have an open-minded debate of ideas, including a debate on nuclear power.