Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I refer to the minister’s statement in the House yesterday that:

The transport sector ... must be a part of any climate change strategy.

Did the minister attend the recent cabinet meeting at which, as reported by Dennis Atkins in the Courier-Mail today, the option was examined to ‘not include fuel transport until at least 2012 in the emissions-trading scheme’?

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

I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. I am happy to talk about climate change at any time because, unlike those opposite, I have had a consistent position on climate change. Since I arrived in this chamber I have been talking about climate change. Since I arrived in this chamber I have been saying that to address climate change we need a whole-of-government response. That of course must include a response that looks at transport. Transport produces about 14 per cent of our total emissions and therefore we need to consider transport as an option. But there has been some confusion from those opposite about transport and climate change. Last night I watched The 7.30 Report. Forget Grey’s Anatomy; last night we had ‘Greg’s Anatomy’ all over Kerry O’Brien’s desk as the member for Flinders dissembled on climate change. He argued that, yes, climate change was important and, yes, transport should be considered as part of it but, no, the opposition are not really sure what their position is. That is what the member for Flinders said. Then I thought: The 7.30 Report is a tough gig sometimes with Kerry O’Brien and it might get better overnight. So I listened to AM this morning.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a very specific question and I do not see any part of it referring to alternative views.

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

Order! There is no point of order. I will listen very carefully and the minister knows he is obliged to be relevant to the question.

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

I certainly am being relevant, Mr Speaker. The question was about climate change and transport and I am happy to talk about climate change and transport. When those opposite do interviews—whether it is on The 7.30 Report, sweating more than a sumo wrestler in a sauna, or on AMafter having listened to those interviews, I have no idea what their position is.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr, Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are asking for the minister’s view, not his opinion of someone else’s view.

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

Order! There is no point of order. I will listen closely to the minister. The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.

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

The fact is that the shadow minister has at least six positions that he has put forward on climate change—more positions than the Kama Sutra.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member was not asked for alternative policy.

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

Order! There is no point of order. I will listen very carefully to the minister and I suggest that he comes to his conclusion.

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

Come in spinner—the man who wants to address climate change from space! That is their solution.

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

Order! The minister will ignore other members and get back to the question.

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

When it comes to transport, we on this side of the House are taking action. We have the green car plan and we have cleaner fuels. We on this side of the House understand the need to address transport and climate change in our cities. Whether it be the urban congestion of cars going nowhere and emitting greenhouse gases or the public transport in our cities, we are addressing transport and climate change across the board.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on relevance: the honourable member could at least refer to the cabinet meeting which I asked him about.

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

Order! There is no point of order. The minister has the call and he will bring his answer to a conclusion.

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

I was quite happy to talk about what we are doing on transport and climate change. What I will not do—and they know I will not do it, as they did not—is discuss cabinet meetings. They know that. They know the question is out of order. They know that I would be breaching the law to talk about what happens at cabinet meetings. My position on climate change is very clear, as is the position of the Rudd Labor government. We will take action—as we did with the first act of this new government, which was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. We will take action, we will continue to take action and we will do this to redress the 12 years of inaction and denial from those opposite.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House why it is important that we address climate change in a consistent, economically responsible way?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Petrie for her question. It is a very important question, because members on this side of the House understand that climate change is the biggest economic challenge the global community faces. Delaying action on climate change will cost our economy dearly. The Stern review estimated that if we do not act the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five per cent of global per capita consumption now and forever. It is that serious.

The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change has stated that delaying action will increase the impact of climate change on the community and the likelihood of a disruptive shock to the Australian economy. The business roundtable also stated that the longer we delay acting, the more expensive it becomes for business and for the wider Australian economy.

As the infrastructure minister was saying before, had those on the other side of the parliament acted some time ago—some five years ago—when a submission on emissions trading was taken to the cabinet, this country would be a lot better off. We must deal with this issue—it is urgent—and the best way to deal with this issue is through an emissions-trading system. So when it comes to climate change we need to act with resolve, we need to act with courage and we need to act with consistency.

All we have had from the member for Flinders is flip-flopping around—joined of course by the member for Wentworth. The member for Flinders has had six different positions in two years. In November 2006 he said he was opposed to an emissions-trading scheme, calling it the wrong way to tackle climate change. Then, in June 2007, he supported the Howard government policy to introduce an emissions-trading scheme. Then of course, in February 2008, he was opposed to an emissions-trading scheme again. In May 2008 he said:

Perhaps the most important domestic policy in recent years has been the decision by the Howard government that Australia will implement a national carbon trading system.

Think about that. That was in May 2008, but this is what we got from the member for Flinders in June 2008. On Radio National he said, ‘The answer is simple, we have not made a decision yet.’ That is what he said on Radio National in May.

And of course we had his final position out there on the doorstep this morning. We had the shadow minister and member for Flinders out there saying that he was going to walk away from it again. He said there was going to be no commitment prior to 2011—he was going to delay the start date. So he is for it, then he is against it, then he is for it and then he is against it. This is what he said. He said this this morning on the doorstep: ‘We will look at the timing following Garnaut.’ This is a guy who has made a career criss-crossing the country in his hemp underpants pretending to be the green conscience of the Liberal Party. So we have had three policies every year—six policies in total.

This morning I noticed a quote in the Australian that there would be ‘a lot of push-back’ in the party room over the need for an ETS. I say to those opposite who are pushing back that you will not have to wait long because you will get another position from the member for Flinders. We on this side of the House take climate change very seriously. It requires courage and it requires consistency and that is what will be delivered by the Rudd government.