Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Would the minister advise the House of the importance of efforts to reduce climate change emissions, including in relation to transport? Is the minister aware of any recent comments that run counter to the government’s position?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bonner for her question. This government is indeed committed to tackling climate change. We regard climate change as the moral challenge for our generation. Climate change is a threat to our economic prosperity, and pretending there is not a problem or leaving it to future generations to solve is not an option. The transport sector, which contributes around 14 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions, must be a part of any climate change strategy. The government is currently working through the design aspects of the ETS. We will be releasing a green paper in July. For the ETS to be effective we know that it needs to have as broad a coverage as possible. Exempting or shielding sectors of the economy from the ETS will increase costs for the sectors which are included. The government is aiming to get the best results on climate whilst minimising pressures on working families and the risk to the economy.

What we know, not just from domestic reports but also from reports such as that done by Stern, is that the sooner you take action the lower the cost will be. Those opposite denied that climate change was a problem for 12 years. They opposed ratifying Kyoto. They opposed an ETS; they said it was just a tax and it should be opposed. But in the lead-up to last year’s election they had a change of heart. They tried to convince the Australian public that they were serious about climate change. The member for Wentworth’s own climate change policy released on behalf of the government of the day, which the Treasurer has outlined, said this about transport:

By bringing transport fuels into the Australian emissions trading system, consumers will be given ... greater incentive to improve the energy efficiency of their transport choices.

Economics 1A, and said by the member for Wentworth as part of their policy. We know from the Treasurer that today on Sky News the member for Wentworth said this in rejecting an ETS involving transport: ‘It was the Howard government’s policy’—as if it had nothing to do with him. But he actually went further. In the same interview he said the emissions-trading scheme was ‘part of our policy last year and it remains—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to standing order 75. If this is a written speech I believe it comes under the heading of irrelevant and tedious repetition. They seem to be wanting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will resume his seat. He knows that standing order 75 does not apply, no matter what construct he places.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today in the same interview the member for Wentworth said that the emissions-trading scheme was ‘part of our policy and it remains our policy today’. So here you have it: it does not matter that there has been no change in the threat to climate change; it just matters that there has been a change because now, instead of being the government, they are the opposition, so any principle just goes out the window. It does not matter if the member for Wentworth contradicts his colleagues. It does not matter if the member for Wentworth contradicts himself: last year—‘transport should be in’; this year—‘it should not be in’. It does not even matter if he contradicts himself because this is the new Liberal Party. This is the Liberal Party that does not stand for anything. This is a party of ‘back to the future’: we are now back to the days when climate change does not need addressing. The only future that they are concerned about is the future of the Leader of the Opposition, which is why the Leader of the Opposition has to appeal to the dinosaurs on his back bench who have made him the leader and who are climate change sceptics. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously and if the shadow Treasurer wants to be taken seriously they should be supporting and acknowledging that market based mechanisms are the least-cost way of addressing climate change. That is why the government are addressing this issue. That is why we are taking action. That is why we will be introducing an emissions-trading scheme.