Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to Xstrata, the world’s largest exporter of thermal coal and an employer of 6,000 Australians, which estimates the government’s bungled emissions trading scheme will lead to the loss of 1,000 existing jobs and 4,000 future jobs—almost all of which are in the state of Queensland—as well as the loss of up to $7 billion of future investment. What does the Prime Minister say to the 1,000 working families he is turning into redundancy families?

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, because it goes to the future of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and in particular to the provisions which are contained within that scheme to get the balance right between the economy, its strength in the long term, and jobs—to reduce carbon pollution in Australia in order to act effectively on climate change. The government’s guiding principle through-out the debate on emissions trading and climate change more generally is that, because Australia is the hottest and the driest continent on earth, the Australian economy and jobs will be hit hardest and earliest among all countries in the world through climate change; therefore, the government has resolved that it is much better for Australia to act in the manner which we have outlined in order to reduce the impact on jobs over time as well as acting effectively nationally and in concert with partners around the world on this matter as well.

The government’s core argument is—and it goes to the question of Xstrata as well as the emissions intensive trade exposed sector of the economy—that the economic costs of inaction on climate change are far greater than the economic costs of action. This has been reflected in Treasury modelling that we released in October 2008, which indicated that the long-term costs of inaction would be 15 per cent higher than if action were taken earlier on this.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. The question was: what will the Prime Minister say to a thousand working families whose wage earners will become redundant.

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

The honourable member asked me a question about a company which is in the emissions intensive, trade exposed sector and about the consequences of the implementation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for companies in that sector and unemployment. That is the response that I am providing to him. I also draw the honourable member’s attention to the government’s core rationale again: that the costs of not acting now are far greater than would otherwise be the case.

I would draw the honourable member’s attention to this question and to a point which he himself made last year on the matter of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or more broadly on emissions trading. This is on the question of when you should take action and when you should not. When he was asked by Laurie Oakes, in July of last year, about the Shergold report, he said—and he quotes, therefore, the position of the opposition at the time:

It is our view that the costs that are clearly there for taking action now are probably more than offset by the potential risks of not taking action.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked about the government’s emissions trading scheme not—

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

The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The question was asked of the Prime Minister. What does the Prime Minister say?

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

It goes to the question of the implementation of emissions trading and the official position of the Liberal Party, as reflected by the current leader of the Liberal Party, is as follows:

It is our view that the costs that are clearly there for taking action now are probably more than offset by the potential risks of not taking action.

That is a quote in a question from Laurie Oakes to Mr Turnbull. Mr Turnbull replied:

Well Laurie, the Shergold report, as picked up in the Howard government’s policy last year, remains our policy.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call and that is not a point of order.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The question was asked. It is being answered.

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

The question was put to Mr Turnbull by Laurie Oakes. When Mr Turnbull replied: ‘Well Laurie,’ I presume that was a response to Laurie Oakes—unless there was some other Laurie in the room—the point of it being:

Well Laurie, the Shergold report…remains our policy.

The Shergold report says:

It is our view that the costs that are clearly there for taking action now are probably more than offset from the potential risks of not taking action.

What we have again is simply this: whether it is on economic stimulus, whether it is on Work Choices, whether it is on carbon pollution reduction, the Leader of the Opposition changes his policy by the day and by the week. Is it any wonder that people in this nation ask where the Liberal Party stand on any matter of policy today when this Leader of the Opposition changes his policy by the minute, by the hour, by the month or least every six months?

This government’s approach to the challenge of climate change is consistent. We believe we must get the balance right between dealing with the challenge of climate change for the future and doing it responsibly to support jobs and the economy and to engender the job creation which will come out of the renewable energy sector of the economy. We have been consistent throughout. Less than nine months ago the Leader of the Opposition had precisely the policy I have just described. Nine months later, under pressure from elsewhere in his party, he has flip-flopped yet again.