Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister has no idea about the impact of his CPRS on agriculture, can he tell the House how much a litre of milk will increase in price for Australian householders under his CPRS?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. He comes from that party of renowned climate change believers, the National Party, led by Senator Barnaby Joyce, who was right out there in his full, wholehearted support for the current Leader of the Opposition! I will come back to the question of the impact for household goods and services in a minute. It must have been a doozy of a party meeting this morning. I am just reading from—

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister has just admitted that he is not even going to get to the question for a minute. I would ask him to come to a very specific question about the cost of a litre of milk and not to go off on some tangent of his own.

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

Order! The member for Sturt can resume his seat. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the National Party led with a preamble that probably was out of order because it was argument, and I think that that then opens up the response.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

I take it that those brave souls who think that they can just talk over the Speaker by way of interjection would like me in future to rule out argument in questions and really restrict a number of the questions that have been asked today. But when a question starts with such words as ‘the Prime Minister has no idea what his CPRS does’ et cetera I think that it is open to a wider response than the specific question that was the point—as I understand by the point of order—of what the Leader of the National Party thought he was asking.

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

As I said before, it must have been a doozy of a party meeting this morning, because I am just reading an online report about what actually transacted in the rolling saga of war and peace. It says:

MALCOLM Turnbull has failed to convince doubters in the Coalition partyroom to support his plan for an emissions trading scheme.

Then it says:

The Opposition—

but they are united in one thing. Remember what the member for North Sydney always said: ‘One thing that unites the Liberal Party is their hatred of the Labor Party.’ They are not united by a policy on climate change; they are united in their opposition to our policy on climate change.

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. With due respect, Mr Speaker—

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Hull interjecting

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

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Hull interjecting

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

If the member for Riverina is finished, I can give the member for Sturt the call. The Manager of Opposition Business.

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

Mr Speaker, with due respect to the remarks you made before—and I hear what you say about the question—I do not see how the Prime Minister’s answer can now be relevant to the question in any way. He is commenting on internal matters of the Liberal Party that he could not even have been present for or know anything about.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will listen carefully to the Prime Minister.

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

The problem is that they are not internal matters of the Liberal Party; they are now external matters of the Liberal Party because they are canvassed extensively in a piece written by our friend from the Australian upstairs there. It says here:

The Opposition will vote against the Rudd Government’s ETS legislation in the Senate but it is no closer to finalising its policy position on an emissions trading scheme.

It then goes on to say:

The spokesman said Mr Turnbull’s announcement of the vote was greeted by “a gratifying grunt of approval”.

Mr Speaker, the next time we have a division in this place, let us see how this ‘gratifying grunt of approval’ which is referred to by those opposite is manifested! The report says:

There would be further discussion of the Frontier Economics paper by the Coalition, the spokesman said, but indicated “general support” for its proposal.

Did it have the general support of the National Party? Because that is what the spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition said.

Honourable Member:

Honourable member interjecting—

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

It did not, apparently. And then the report goes on to say:

This is despite a briefing at the start of a marathon meeting today and yesterday’s big bang release by Mr Turnbull of the Frontier Economics modelling of—

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

Mr Speaker—

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

Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Prime Minister will relate his material to the question. I think that he has had his long run-up.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On the question of the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on the price of carbon and the flow-through impacts on fuel and on energy prices and therefore onto other goods and services in the economy, that is why the Australian government, in releasing its white paper on this, detailed a complete schedule of assistance for low-income families and for middle-income families to assist with adjustment prices for families impacted by the introduction of the scheme. Those opposite pretend that the scheme that they would support would not have an impact on prices in the economy. Is that really what those opposite are arguing, or is that simply a piece of opportunistic politics?

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

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would refer you to page 553 of House of Representatives Practice, where it says:

The interpretation of ‘relevant’ has at times been very wide …

However, it has been ruled that it must be ‘relevant in some way’ or ‘in part’ to the question—that is: how much will the price of a litre of milk go up? I would ask you to refer the Prime Minister back to the question.

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

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The member for Mackellar has assisted by reading the very generous definition of relevance that has been used. I think that now the Prime Minister is fulfilling the intent of the paragraph read out.

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

I draw the honourable member’s attention, as he is engaged on the policy dimensions of this, to what we said at the time that the white paper was released about what we would do to support households in general; pensioners, carers, seniors and other low-income households; middle-income households; as well as motorists. That was clearly outlined in our policy, which we put out in the white paper, a policy which is now legislated—and in a piece of legislation which currently languishes in the Senate.

The honourable member also asked the question about the price of milk. I would have thought that, being from the National Party, he might appreciate the fact that, in recent times, we have seen the withdrawal also of the previous government’s dairy industry adjustment levy. As a consequence, I am advised by the minister for primary industries, the impact on the price of milk is about 11c a litre, and that is in the other direction. I draw the honourable member’s attention to what we have done in terms of our white paper.

But what can I say about those opposite? We have seen more discipline in your average riot than we have on the part of the Liberal Party today. Frankly, the country deserves better. As the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Water said, rightly, in parliament today, we have before the Senate one of the most significant pieces of economic and environmental legislation that the parliament has had to engage in, as all sober minded legislatures are around the world. We have a policy; it is in legislation. Those opposite are simply looking for any excuse, any excuse whatsoever, to prevent them from taking a policy position in terms of what this nation needs for emissions trading for the future. Our policy is clear; those opposite have become a rabble.