Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. Will the minister outline any impediments to the government taking action to combat climate change on behalf of the Australian people?

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Braddon for the question. While the opposition have been preoccupied in recent days with a smear campaign about a fake email that has blown up in their face, the government have been endeavouring to get on with meeting the challenge of climate change. The legislation is in the Senate and we are being confronted by delay while the coalition have been obsessing about a fake email and engaging in a personal smear campaign against the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The fact of the matter is that, on this policy issue, the coalition are paralysed by division and by indecision. They cannot make their minds up and present a unified position on the issue of climate change and the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation. And it has to be recalled that, under 12 years of the Howard government, no action was taken on this issue despite countless reports. They refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Despite all of the evidence and the work that has been done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the coalition are still divided.

We only need to go to some of the comments on the record by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the coalition on this important issue. The Leader of the Opposition, in his then capacity in the Howard government, said the following about the climate change science:

This report—

in reference to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC—

presents a snapshot of the peer reviewed climate change science and confirms that human activity is causing global warming.

This is an important recognition of the science in that report. We have heard an interjection from the member for Tangney in response to the answer given earlier by the Prime Minister. The member for Tangney said this year, in relation to this same issue, on the science:

‘Global warming’ has been exposed as a massive fraud which the public has been duped into believing …

The simple fact is that there is no ‘global warming’ of the kind claimed by the federal government and its cheerleaders in the green lobby …

Now we have had the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge and respect the science of the IPCC report and the member for Tangney completely repudiate it and call it a fraud. Of course, Senator Abetz is still on the record; he has never repudiated the fact that he has claimed that weeds are a bigger threat than climate change. He is worried about Paterson’s curse and lantana being a bigger threat than climate change. Senator Cash of the coalition also does not believe that the science is settled, and put it on the record in a minority report of a Senate committee. There are other members of the coalition on the record as sceptics about the climate science: the member for Dickson, a climate change sceptic; the member for Calare, a climate change sceptic; the member for Kalgoorlie, a climate change sceptic; the member for Cowper, a climate change sceptic. No denials; none of them accept the science.

It is little wonder, in these circumstances, that not only are those opposite divided about the science and incapable of coming to a position but they also cannot agree on what to do about it. So it is little wonder that there is no unity in the coalition about the issue of emissions trading. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said on 31 May in relation to this issue:

The world is moving very solidly in the direction of emissions trading schemes, most notably the Americans. So yes—

said the Leader of the Opposition—

I’ve got no doubt we will have an emissions trading scheme in Australia. That’s my view.

That is a very important statement from the Leader of the Opposition. Can he deliver on it? Can he deliver a position from the coalition on this issue? Take the commentary from Senator Bernardi, also in May of this year and representing the view of the coalition, in the light of this observation that the Leader of the Opposition has made. This is what Senator Bernardi said on radio in South Australia:

The coalition’s position is we will be opposing this emissions trading scheme.

That is the statement of the—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I would refer you to page 553 of the Practice and particularly to that part where it says that ‘a minister “should not engage in irrelevances”, such as contrasting the government and opposition’ and the Speaker is on record as telling the minister to wind up his answer and sit down.

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

Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The minister was asked about impediments to the government—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tuckey interjecting

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

A butterfly stamp for the member for O’Connor for that very perceptive observation! The standing orders relate to what may or may not be asked in the question. The question was in order and the minister is responding to the question.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is clearly in evidence is the division of the coalition over the greatest—the most important—economic and environmental reform that this country faces. We cannot get a united position from the coalition—not a single constructive proposal. Their division is holding the Australian community captive with respect to its ability to respond, through the Australian government, and to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to reduce our emissions and to play a constructive role in the strongest possible way in international negotiations late this year. The coalition are frustrating the Australian government’s capacity to properly pursue what we were elected to pursue, and that is the taking of strong action on climate change. The coalition need to take responsibility on this important issue. The Leader of the Opposition needs to unify the coalition or stand aside on this issue. The Australian government must be able to go to Copenhagen this year upon the passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and the business community, environmental groups and the Australian community demand that the coalition take responsibility.