Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the need for an approach to climate change that recognises the need to tackle our future challenges rather than an approach to climate change that is stuck in the past?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. Climate change is among the most pressing economic challenges facing the world today and is among the most pressing long-term economic challenges facing Australia. All are familiar with the fact that the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change.

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

Dr Jensen interjecting

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

The member for Tangney!

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

I would draw attention to a new report from the CSIRO that was released today. On the question of the economic and employment impacts of climate change, the report underlines that by acting on climate change we can create new opportunities for economic growth and for employment. I draw honourable members’ attention to this report because it is a contribution to the debate. The report is entitled Growing the green collar economy: skills and labour challenges in reducing our greenhouse emissions and national environmental footprint.

The CSIRO analysis, which is a report to the Dusseldorp Skills Forum, is based on the most recent economic modelling. Using two different economic models, the CSIRO has found that, if Australia takes significant action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, national employment will still increase by between 2.5 million and 3.3 million over the next two decades; secondly, jobs in sectors that are currently high carbon emitters, like transport, construction, agriculture, manufacturing and mining, are forecast to grow strongly as well in the next decade; and, furthermore, in high environmental impact industries, 3.25 million workers will need to be equipped with new more sustainable skills. In dealing with these challenges, there are two options facing those of us charged with national political responsibility. Either you prepare Australia for this future or you stick your head in the sand, which would be to run away from the problem.

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

Dr Jensen interjecting

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

The member for Tangney is warned!

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

To quote the Executive Director of the Dusseldorp Skills Forum in the report today:

Climate change is both our greatest economic risk and, ironically, a great economic opportunity. But only if the Australian workforce is properly skilled and resourced to underpin truly sustainable industries and workplaces.

In the debate this week on climate change and an emissions-trading scheme there has been a great deal of proper emphasis on the economic cost of inaction—the cost that will be borne by the Australian economy on the part of our farmers, the tourism sector, through the consequences that flow for public health outcomes and also, to mention something that we have not touched on in this debate before, the long-term consequences for insurance premiums. All of these represent impacts that will have to be dealt with. Whether it concerns Kakadu, whether it is to do with the impact of drought on our rural commodity exports or whether it is the impact on public health, we believe that the economic case for action is clear-cut. This is an economic policy challenge. If we stick our heads in the sand, these things will come to affect us and those who follow us—our children and our grandchildren—and it will affect, long term, the health of the Australian economy.

That is why we have embarked on a course of policy action to deal with these challenges. We have committed ourselves to increasing the renewable energy target. We have committed ourselves to a half-billion dollar Renewable Energy Fund, a half-billion dollar National Clean Coal Fund and a quarter of a billion dollar Clean Business Fund. As well, we have committed ourselves to the introduction of a market based way of dealing with bringing down greenhouse gas emissions over time—an emissions-trading scheme. Our objective is clear: it is to bring down emissions over time. We are deploying these multiple areas of policy to do that. And in managing the transition to a lower carbon economy we will act in a responsible and equitable fashion to support working families, pensioners, carers and low-income Australians throughout the transition process. We will also provide support to business through the transition process.

Our position is clear and our timetable for this is clear. We are seeking to do this in a consultative fashion, not just with industry but across the wider community. It is a most complex task and, had it been begun during the 12 years when those opposite occupied the treasury bench—and begun in earnest—Australia would be better placed than it currently finds itself.

I was also asked to contrast this with policies that are very much located in the past. I draw honourable members’ attention to the clarity of the approach we are bringing to bear in this national debate on the one hand and the absolute absence of clarity on the part of those opposite. Were this not such a significant national debate, we could simply push that to one side, but this will be a major economic debate for the second half of this year and beyond because it will affect us long term.

What we have on the part of those opposite is absolute policy incoherence. I cannot make hide nor hair of it, because we have the member for Wentworth saying that he supports the inclusion of petrol in an emissions-trading scheme. He said that in July 2007 but when asked about whether it was Liberal Party policy today he said, ‘That was Howard government policy.’ I do not know what it is today, but it was Howard government policy. He then went on in an interview—I emphasise to all those opposite—that it was the whole government policy on the part of the Howard government, including presumably the current Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the cabinet which determined their approach to climate change and emissions trading in the middle of last year. It was a reminder from the member for Wentworth that they were all on board for that one.

Then we tried to seek further clarity as to where policy stands now, so we turned to the member for Flinders. The member for Flinders is even more illuminating on this question, because when asked whether emissions trading is now a part of Liberal policy for the future—when challenged on this in an interview the other day—he said that ETS is their policy. It is their policy. So we are now getting to the stage where it was Howard government policy; we do not know whether it is going to continue to be Howard government policy.

The member for Flinders, their spokesman on the environment, says it is their policy but we are not quite sure what part of it is their policy, because he was asked the critical question whether, in fact, fuel should be left out. This is the debate, and those opposite, by virtue of their questions in parliament today, are implying that fuel should be left out. That is the fear campaign they have launched. So here, in the ultimate clarification of policy, the member for Flinders, their spokesman on the environment, was asked this clear-cut question:

So you are clearly arguing that fuel should be left out?

Answer from Mr Hunt:

No, we are going to make a final decision in due course ...

So we are not sure whether they are going to have an emissions-trading scheme. Some say that it was Howard government policy; some say it still is Liberal Party policy in opposition. But on the question of the inclusion of petrol, based on all the questions I heard this week, I thought we could assume that it was out. Now we think that—at least on the current formulation of the leadership—but, no, the member for Flinders says, ‘We’re going to make a final decision in due course.’ It would be good if we had some clarity on this, so in further search of clarity on this question—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

There is always a great barometer of how things are going on the part of those opposite: it is called ‘the Hockey volume barometer’. The louder Joe yells you know the worse it is getting.

On the question of clarity on this we had to go, again, to what the current Leader of the Opposition had to say about this. I understand that it was in an interview today. There you go; it is from the Liberal Party of Australia. If you want some clarity about what their position on emissions trading is, and their position on what the impact of energy prices would be—because that has been the other thrust of their questioning this week—the Leader of the Opposition said this in response to a question:

The fact of it is that if we go, as we will, as we must, as we will and we will pay a price as a nation as we should—

This interview was this morning. I actually had them double-check the transcript to make sure this was accurate—

for a genuinely global response. One of the consequences of that will be an increase in the price of energy—electricity bills for households and petrol and fuels that we use ...

In other words, their position is—

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Leader of the House will get the call when the House comes to order.

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

Dr Jensen interjecting

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

The member for Tangney was warned earlier in the day. He will leave the chamber for one hour under 94(a).

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

It is for one hour and I do not think he can catch his plane.

The member for Tangney then left the chamber.

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

I am concerned that perhaps the Prime Minister might be misleading the House. The Leader of the Opposition cannot possibly have said that gibberish. I ask—

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

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. He knows that that does not come under the standing orders and it is not helpful at all.

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

So, in a vain search for clarity on the part of their actual position on (a) climate change, (b) emissions trading, (c) the inclusion of petrol, and (d) the implication for petrol and energy prices, members opposite and in fact the entire House could be, shall we say, well understood if we had some confusion on this question, because frankly it is difficult to discern where those opposite stand on one of the critical policy challenges for the year ahead. The interview concludes on a question where again the Leader of the Opposition was asked about their position on emissions trading and his definitive response was:

In government we believed in an emissions-trading scheme—

‘We believed in an emissions-trading scheme’! He went on:

... now ... we too believe that an emissions-trading scheme, assuming the rest of the world is able to work with us in an emissions-trading scheme, is the way to go.

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. The Prime Minister has been answering the question for 9½ minutes now. We would prefer to hear from the member for Grayndler than the gas from the Prime Minister.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! I am happy for the House to end on this tone, but I am not going to cop the blame for it. I think it is probably appropriate to apportion the blame to those who are responsible. The House should really have a good look at itself. I suppose I will just have to leave it to others from outside to view the behaviour of this place and make their own decisions. I call the Prime Minister.

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

On this other critical question of an emissions-trading scheme the Leader of the Opposition said today that they believe in one but only when the rest of the world acts. Let us go back to their environment spokesperson who said in May that Australia should not wait until a genuinely global agreement has been negotiated. In other words, whether it is on support for an ETS at all, the inclusion of petrol, the impact of price or whether an ETS should be brought in prior to or subsequent to the establishment of global arrangements on this score, we have at least three conflicting positions on the part of those opposite.

This is a serious debate for the nation’s future. It has huge economic implications for the nation. It has huge implications in terms of the environment itself. We are proceeding in a calm, measured, responsible way through our deliberative processes with industry. Across the other side of the parliamentary chamber today, and in recent days and weeks, we have an absolute policy shambles—there is not a skerrick of consistency on any element of these policies. I would invite those opposite to participate in a sober national debate on this rather than simply degenerate into the fear campaign and the scare campaign which those opposite have embarked upon. It is not worthy of them, it is not worthy of this parliament and it is not worthy of the future of the national economy.