Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is quite brief. It is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House how much more per hour it will cost small businesses in my electorate to run their air-conditioners under his government’s flawed emissions trading scheme?

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

Underpinning the position of the question just asked by the honourable member is this: the assumption that the position put out by Frontier Economics does not involve any adjustment to the carbon price. That is in fact the fallacy which is being advanced by those opposite. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether in fact this policy which is not a policy will impact on the carbon price? The government has been upfront about the fact that the introduction of a carbon pollution reduction scheme will have an effect on prices in the economy, and that is why the government has detailed at some considerable length what it would provide by way of assistance for households in transition—and I answered that in response to an earlier question. When it comes to a range of industry sectors, including those which are emissions-intensive trade-exposed and the coal industry, they are also outlined in the government’s policy. When it comes to the climate change adjustment fund, the honourable member would also be familiar with the fact that that fund has also been established, particularly to assist with adjustment costs for regions and for small businesses and the business community in adjusting to changes to the carbon price.

I say to those opposite, as they now embark on their latest campaign of fear on this—because we know that there are two disciplines which those opposite are good at: fear and smear—that this will advance—

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

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded? The member for Kingston.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer.

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

Mr Sidebottom interjecting

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

The member for Kingston will resume her seat. The member for Braddon. I am not sure the early flight gets him back home. The member for Kingston has the call.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is it so important that business gets the certainty it needs from the implementation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and what has the reaction been to other proposals?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kingston for her question. It is the case that from day one of the Rudd government we announced our intention to introduce a cap-and-trade scheme. It is the case that we have had a green paper, that we have had a white paper and that we have had extensive modelling. It is the case that there is legislation that has been before the parliament for some time. And through all of that discussion with the Australian people, and most particularly with the business community, there has been one theme. What the country needs, what the business community requires, is certainty. They require certainty because they require certainty for investment. Investment, of course, goes to the very core of job creation in a low-pollution economy. What the government is doing is putting in place a scheme which will set this country up for the future. And what we get from those opposite is just a completely negative approach. What we have seen in here today is how divided and how delusional they are—completely divided, completely delusional and completely incapable of constructing an alternative policy which goes to the very core of future prosperity in this country and where our children and our grandchildren will get jobs.

You would think, when there is such a big issue of such national importance, that those opposite could rise above their division and come to the table and do something constructive. But they have not done that. They have got the hide to come into this House and pretend that they have a policy when they do not. Just today in the House two of the questions have been from the National Party, who are absolutely opposed to any scheme at all. We have seen both sides of the argument already. Business want to move forward with confidence while those opposite want to leave them in the past. They want to chain business to the past by their refusal to discuss and put forward a positive alternative. That is the problem we have, because there can be no certainty when those opposite do not have any alternative amendments—and they do not. And, of course, there can be no certainty when there are no targets. It was made very clear when their shadow minister, Mr Danny Price, who does not sit in this House but who appeared with the Leader of the Opposition, said that there would be moving targets and that there could be fewer permits if things changed in the electricity industry. Of course, what that means is that, if things were to change in the electricity industry, the rest of the business community, the rest of the economy, would pay the price. This scheme that the government has put forward is in the national interest. Those opposite are voting against certainty, confidence and jobs—and for that they should be condemned.