Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. As the minister has advised the House on the role of transport in strategies to avoid dangerous climate change, can the minister give further comments on actions that should be a part of such a strategy?

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

I am pleased to again get a question about transport and climate change, and I thank the member for Forde for his question. We know that infrastructure and transport have to be a part of the climate change strategy. That is why we included reference to climate change as a consideration in the Infrastructure Australia legislation. We know, for example, that our national freight task is due to double in the next 20 years and we know that we have to improve efficiency in roads and rail.

Today, with the ARTC, I launched a new digital system that will cut travel times for both passenger and freight trains going from Sydney to Brisbane by 45 minutes. Members might ask: how can that occur? It is because, previously, we had a staff and token technology system which had operated since the 1890s—1850s technology operating since the 1890s. What trains would have to do every 20 kilometres between Casino in New South Wales and Acacia Ridge in Brisbane was stop. The driver would have to get out, grab a widget like the one I am holding—this is the Casino to Kyogle loop widget—put it in and make sure that it was registered on a machine that stood some five feet high. The fact is that stopping every 20 kilometres for 15 minutes is extraordinarily inefficient.

That is why the government are taking on the economic reform challenge when it comes to transport. What we did today was launch new digital technology that completes the track so that it can be controlled from Newcastle. What we are doing is moving from the dinosaur age to the digital age, and we need to do that across the board. We know that, in May, rail freight volumes were the highest in our history—the greatest amount of freight carried by rail in our history.

These are the sorts of practical measures that we need if we are going to address climate change. This morning I also chaired a meeting of the working group of the Australian Transport Council looking at a national strategy when it comes to rail, shipping and road safety to get harmonisation and make sure that we get efficiencies, whether they be in road or rail.

This new digital technology is part of the $2.1 billion that is being invested to bring rail into the 21st century. Those opposite sat back and denied climate change, denied the need for economic reform and did nothing about it. We on this side are taking practical action to make sure that we address all of these issues. That will not only benefit us with regard to climate change but also have substantial benefits for our economic productivity.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that an emissions-trading scheme will increase the cost of petrol for Australian households?

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

It is pretty interesting to look at the whole debate on climate change and on emissions trading, because last year we had many contributions on this debate, including by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard—

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about answering the question?

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

It goes directly to the question. Mr Howard told the Melbourne Press Club—I presume, representing the Howard Liberal government—on 17 July last year:

Now we must position Australia for a low carbon future. We face a major new reform challenge in designing an emissions trading system and setting a long-term goal for reducing our emissions in the absence of a global carbon scheme.

These decisions will be amongst the most important Australia takes in the next decade.…

Reducing carbon emissions will mean higher energy and petrol prices. Australians need to understand that.

That was the former, Liberal Prime Minister of Australia last year. Therefore I would draw the attention of those opposite, firstly, to the position adopted by the former Prime Minister in announcing the position of the government then and, secondly, to the position which was put forward by the member for Wentworth, which is that—

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

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney.

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

The last Prime Minister had the courage to say it—

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

Order!

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

why won’t this Prime Minister have the courage to say it?

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

The point of order is, I assume, on relevance. The Prime Minister is addressing the question. I remind the Manager of Opposition Business that there is no way that the construction of the question can demand a yes or no answer. I call the Prime Minister.

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

I’m sorry, but—

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

Order! No, the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. If the Manager of Opposition Business wishes to refer to the chapter in House of Representatives Practice on questions, he will see that very point discussed. I call the Prime Minister.

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

Furthermore, on 3 June last year, the former Prime Minister said:

Significantly reducing emissions will mean higher costs for businesses and households, there is no escaping that …

That is what the former Prime Minister had to say. Then we had the member for Wentworth as environment minister representing what I understood was Howard government policy but not Liberal Party policy. That was the position that we had from the member for Wentworth yesterday.

The government recognises the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport, which currently comprise around 14 per cent of Australia’s total emissions. 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.

So let us just put all of this into context. The former Prime Minister said in the middle of last year, when the coalition spoke of their intention to introduce an emissions-trading scheme, that action in these areas would increase energy costs. Furthermore, they said that they would include transport within the emissions-trading scheme. And yet we have an entire question time strategy—the new chapter in the fear campaign being launched by those opposite—about the impact of emissions trading on petrol prices. We have a very clear-cut process to unfold an emissions-trading scheme in Australia: (1) we are going to have a green paper later, in July; (2)—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Well, this is a considered way in which to develop public policy, because it is a serious public policy challenge for the future: (1) we are going to have a green paper in July; (2) by the end of the year we anticipate having a white paper in response to that, and we will canvass all of the relevant matters concerning the future of the emissions-trading scheme in those papers.

Of course the position adopted by the former Prime Minister is right. If you adopt a position of acting on climate change it does have an impact on energy prices. That is just the truth. He said it then; we say it now. What is the difference between us and them now? We have a plan of action to deal with this in the future. Those opposite have decided that this is a matter which they intend to turn into short-term political advantage. Those opposite are committed to a fear campaign. What we have is a return of the climate change sceptics, a return of the Kyoto sceptics, from a party which will do anything and say anything in order to obtain political advantage. Our government has a plan of action on climate change; you have nothing but short-term political opportunism.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the importance of an emissions-trading scheme for Australia’s future and any backward-looking positions on emissions trading that currently exist?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. I draw honourable members’ attention to the report released today by the Queensland government on the effects of climate change in Queensland. I would ask coalition members who come from Queensland to pay particular attention to what this report has to say. The report, Climate change in Queensland: what the science is telling us, compiled by the Queensland government’s Office of Climate Change, outlines the potential impacts for Queensland in a number of areas. These include (1) a tendency for less rainfall, (2) more severe droughts, (3) sea levels rising, (4) more intense tropical cyclones and (5) increased risk of storm surge. Climate change, therefore, as a consequence of these impacts, represents not just a direct environmental assault on the planet and on our country—and in this case the analysis relates to Queensland—but consequential economic effects as well.

Remember that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that temperatures could go up by 2.5 degrees and that would of itself result in an impact on global GDP of between 1.5 and two per cent. That is a most significant impact when it comes to the overall performance of the global economy. Those opposite continue to argue that somehow this does not represent a fundamental economic challenge for Australia to get right for the future and for the world to get right for the future. We say that this is a fundamental economic challenge and that it requires, therefore, a considered policy response.

If you look at Australia, you see that the economic costs that would be borne would obviously fall to Australian farmers, the tourism sector and our key export industries, and there would be higher insurance premiums and public health outcomes. Look at the impact, for example, on our natural heritage and the consequential impact which would then flow to Australian tourism. The CSIRO estimates that if temperatures rose by between two and three degrees then 80 per cent of Kakadu’s freshwater wetlands would be lost due to rising sea levels. Furthermore, according to the CSIRO, under those circumstances almost all of the Great Barrier Reef would be bleached. On top of that, the Queensland climate change report released today reminds us of the value of the Great Barrier Reef—over $4.9 billion in tourism and employment for around 60,000 people—and the danger it faces from climate change. That is the impact on our natural environment and the consequential impact also on tourism.

If you turn then to agriculture, ABARE’s analysis estimates that a changing climate could reduce wheat, beef, dairy and sugar production by an estimated nine to 10 per cent by 2030 and by 13 to 19 per cent by 2050. ABARE also finds that exports of these key commodities could decline by as much as 63 per cent by 2030 and as much as 79 per cent by 2050. Furthermore, CSIRO estimates that flows into the Murray-Darling would fall by 10 to 25 per cent if temperatures rose by between one and two degrees. Therefore, we have the overall economic impact, the impact on our natural environment, the consequential impact on tourism and, flowing through from that, the cost also to Australia’s primary producers and our exports in that sector as well.

Then there is public health. The potential cost there is significant. According to the Climate Institute in the CSIRO, a one- to two-degree increase in temperatures will lead to the southwards spread of malaria-receptive zones and 1,200 to 1,400 more heat related deaths a year in major population centres. On top of that again, a two- to three-degree increase in temperatures would cause the spread of dengue fever transmission zones as far as Brisbane.

We take these technical reports seriously. The government listens to what the science is saying. The government pays attention to what these reports say about the economic cost to Australia, the cost in particular to agriculture, the cost in particular to our tourism sector and the cost to public health over time as well. That is why Australia needs a forward-looking strategy to deal with climate change. That is why we have established a half-billion-dollar Clean Coal Fund; that is why we have established a half-billion-dollar Renewable Energy Fund; that is why we have established a quarter-billion-dollar Clean Business Fund; that is why we have a commitment to increase the renewable energy target for the country; and that is why we have a commitment, unlike those opposite, to introduce an emissions-trading scheme, because an emissions-trading scheme is a core part of providing the market based responses for dealing with the overall challenge of greenhouse gas emissions into the future.

An emissions-trading scheme will help Australia transition to a lower carbon economy, an economy which can then also participate in environmental industries of the future. The government will use revenue from the ETS to help Australians, households and business cope with the costs and invest in cleaner energy options. The government will assist families, pensioners and carers, including low-income households, to adjust to any impact of carbon prices. At the same time, we will be helping Australian families to take practical action in their own homes to use energy more efficiently and to save on their energy bills.

These are practical courses of action. We have an integrated strategy concerned with the investment in new technologies, the promotion of renewable energy, the implementation of an emissions-trading scheme as well as arrangements contained within that scheme to ease any transition burden for households and for business.

I was also asked about what alternative views exist on this matter. I would simply ask those opposite one question: would they consider their responsibilities to the nation in constructively engaging in this debate about Australia’s environmental and economic future as opposed to the campaign of fear which they have launched this week? It is a fear campaign which is designed purely to advance their own political interests, from a party which increasingly shows itself prepared to do anything and say anything in order to gain a political advantage or to gain a headline.

I conclude with this. Those opposite, barely 12 months ago, stood up and said to the nation that they would (a) implement an emissions-trading scheme and (b) they would include transport. And 12 months later what are they doing? They are simply cutting and trimming because they see some political advantage in so doing. We have a clear-cut plan for the future to deal with this. Those opposite are caught on the horns of their own political dilemma and are internally divided. The member for Wentworth has yet to give us any explanation as to why he has not stood up to the Leader of the Opposition and maintained the integrity of the position which he put forward on behalf of the Liberal government of Australia barely 12 months ago.