Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments by Alcoa that the government’s emissions trading scheme could lead to 1,800 jobs in Portland and Geelong, in Victoria, being moved overseas. What does the Prime Minister say to the 1,800 working families who will become redundancy families as a result of the government’s deeply flawed emissions trading scheme?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. The government’s overall approach to the deep question of climate change is—and I say again what the core principle of the government’s policy attitude is—that the economic costs of inaction on climate change are far greater than the economic costs of action. I also note for the record that that was the position of the Leader of the Liberal Party as recently as last year. What we have seen through the pirouettes in policy which have occurred over the course of the last weekend by the Liberal Party and its leader is again flip, flop, flap—on climate change policy as well. This goes directly to the honourable member’s question about the future of industries in this country and getting the balance right for jobs, including in the aluminium industry, and the structure of the scheme which we have put forward, as I described before. But what the people of this country expect is consistency of policy. What we have had from those opposite is flip, flop, flap, not just on the question—

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. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about jobs in Portland and Geelong. If these people are just Rudd job consequences—

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

The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister was asked what he would say. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

What the people of this country—engaged in a debate about the economy, engaged in a debate about jobs, engaged in a debate about the future of emissions trading—want is for both sides of politics to have some consistency. What we have put forward through the green paper, through the white paper, through the draft legislation, is our approach of dealing with what is an economic problem for Australia—namely, how to deal with climate change. Again I say this is the hottest and driest continent on earth; therefore the jobs consequences and economic consequences will be felt in Australia hardest and earliest compared with other countries.

The honourable member also refers specifically to the aluminium industry. I draw his attention to the fact that it is listed in the CPRS white paper as one of the activities likely to receive 90 per cent free permits. I just draw that to his attention. I also draw the honourable member’s attention to the following—that, when it comes to consistency of policy, last year they were saying that action on climate change and emissions trading was necessary, irrespective of international action. This year they have changed again. Last year we had in fact the Leader of the Opposition saying that commencement could be in 2011-12. Now he says it is to be only in 2012.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Eighty thousand people who had jobs woke up this morning without a job.

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

The member for Goldstein will resume his seat.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and COAG and Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on Emissions Trading Design) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to know about the 1,800—

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

The member for Goldstein is warned! The only approach that a member can make is on a point of order. It is not an opportunity for argument. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

Those opposite are arguing, in terms of their position—whatever it happens to be on climate change now—that they can only start, it seems, in 2012. In recent times it has been 2011-12. Before that it was 2011. But the next Leader of the Opposition, the member for Higgins, has actually said:

We’re talking about getting it up and running by 2010.

That was Peter Costello on The 7.30 Report back in the year 2007.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a specific question about jobs. I ask you to bring the Prime Minister back to the question that he was asked.

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

As I have said in the past, no matter how the framers of the question believe the question to be specific, the ministers can choose to answer in whatever way. I just add that, in the construction of this question, the question concluded with ‘What does the Prime Minister say to’—a group of people.

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

Again I draw the member for Goldstein’s attention to the fact that, when it comes to the aluminium smelting industry, it was listed in the CPRS white paper as one of the activities likely to receive 90 per cent free permits. We understand on this side of the House the challenges of transition. That is why we have embarked upon the scheme that we have, together with the other elements of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which those opposite choose to ignore in their partisan presentation of the debate today.

Again, I go back to the whole question of consistency. Our approach, through the green paper, through the white paper, through the draft legislation, is about getting the balance right between what we do on climate change and how we support the economy and jobs. Again, the flip, flop, flap from those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, is about starting dates—whether it is 2010, 2011 or 2012, depending on the season—and should it be conditional international action or should it not? The answer changes all the way through.

But then we come to what I thought was a remarkable statement by the Leader of the Opposition over the weekend where he says this:

The emissions trading scheme is just one tool in the climate policy tool box. Well-designed it is a useful tool, but it is not a necessary tool at all.

That is the Leader of the Opposition, 16 March 2009. Roll the clock back to 21 May 2008. Mr Turnbull says:

The emissions trading scheme is the central mechanism to decarbonise our economy.

So nine months ago the emissions trading scheme is the central mechanism to decarbonise the economy and nine months later, because of some political pressures from the right wing of his party, he says, ‘Well, it is just one tool in climate policy and it is not a necessary tool.’ What rank inconsistency and hypocrisy.

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

Mr Speaker, will the Prime Minister table the entirety of the transcript from which he was reading?

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

Was the Prime Minister reading from a document? Is the document confidential?

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

Yes.

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. How can the Prime Minister claim a transcript of an interview apparently is a confidential document?

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

There is no point of order. The matter was dealt with as it has been done in the past.