Tony Abbott (Warringah, 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 overnight news reports that President Obama is likely to drop his emissions trading scheme in the United States. Given this important development, I ask the Prime Minister why he still wants to foist upon Australia a complex, costly and almost incomprehensible scheme?

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

My first response to the Leader of the Opposition’s question is that the decision to back an emissions trading scheme in this country was first taken by John Howard as Prime Minister of Australia two years ago. The second point is that it was a decision also supported by the then Treasurer, Mr Costello, and, until five or six weeks ago, it was a decision supported by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth. It has also been a position supported by the member for Flinders and various members that I can identify across the front bench of the coalition.

On the question of the United States, which the honourable member has asked about, can I say this: in the United States President Obama confronts an institution which is well known to this place as well—it is called ‘the senate’. The senate in the United States is not necessarily going to be accommodating of his aspirations to introduce an emissions trading scheme. On the question of global action in emissions trading I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to answer this: why is it that 30 advanced economies around the world have made the same decision as John Howard, Peter Costello, Malcolm Turnbull and, until six weeks ago, all of those represented opposite? The reason for this change is that those opposite have chosen instead a path which is all about the politics of complaint, not the policy of solution.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the importance of a market based emissions trading system as the best method to transition to a low-pollution economy of the future?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. The preface to her question is an important one, because this Labor government has been committed to a market based response to dealing with the challenge of climate change, as historically has the Liberal Party of Australia as opposed to those opposite, who now adopt what has been elegantly described by the former Leader of the Opposition as a ‘command and control’ approach to bringing about any effective change on climate change.

Reform in Australia is a hard business; it always has been. Therefore, when you look at this challenge of climate change, it will be hard in this area as well. If we look back over the last quarter of a century, we can see that the reforms, back in the eighties and nineties, to the Australian economy were hard-won reforms. The reforms that introduced compulsory superannuation, for example, were hard-won reforms. This economy, a quarter of a century later, benefits from governments which had the  courage to make hard decisions in hard areas of reform. Had those decisions not been taken by governments back then, the flexibility of our economy to deal most recently with the challenges of the global financial crisis would have been put to the test indeed.

The reform which the economy must undergo in relation to climate change falls exactly into this category. We can either undertake this reform now for the future or we can continue to push it off and push it off and push it off. If we continue to push it off, as those opposite are recommending in their approach, then the reality is that the costs of climate change then come back to fundamentally undermine our future economic wellbeing, whether through its impact on agriculture, the devastation of the Murray-Darling, the impact on tourism in the Great Barrier Reef or the intensification of drought across our nation, our economy and our rural communities as well.

It was for these reasons that, having conducted a large number of investigations, the Howard government, through the task group on emissions trading, the Garnaut review, the UK Stern report on the economics of climate change—all these independent examinations—reached one conclusion: the most effective and least costly means to execute change in response to the challenge of climate change was through a market based system. That was the conclusion they reached and that is why all those individual governments  and political leaders at the time reached the same conclusion. Our approach to climate change is based on five core principles: (1) the science; (2) cost; (3) effectiveness; (4) our global engagement; and (5) consistency of approach. On the science, it is fundamental that we on this side of the House accept the climate change science. The Leader of the Opposition has stated elegantly—or inelegantly but effectively—his view on the climate change science. In his owns words: climate change is ‘absolute crap’. That is his view. That is not the government’s view.

The House may be interested to know what the shadow minister responsible for climate change had to say on the science today. In an interview on 4 February on NewsRadio, the member for Flinders answered in these terms: ‘My view is very clear. I happen to be, on balance, of the view that the science for climate change is strong and compelling.’

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give up!

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

He has given up! Well done, Greg. I say to the member for Flinders that the Leader of the Opposition has given up, and that is the point. I commend the member for Flinders for at least sticking to his consistent position on accepting the science of climate change. This contrasts with the view of the leader he now serves. The Leader of the Opposition now says: ‘The science is not entirely settled; there is still considerable room to question on this.’ And elsewhere he has said that he is ‘entirely underwhelmed’ by the science. More compellingly, in his own vernacular, he says that it is ‘absolute crap’. We have a Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of Australia who says that climate change is absolute crap and a shadow minister for the environment who says that the evidence is strong and compelling. Is it any wonder that the parliament of the nation is confused on this question?

14:36:58 I said there were five principles. Science is one. The second is the cost mechanism. Our approach is simple: we use a market based approach, and that is because we believe that the cost should be borne by the major polluters. Their approach is that the cost should be borne by the taxpayer. Therefore, the difference between the two approaches is simple: theirs is three times more expensive than ours, at least, and it is a $10 billion-plus charge and impost on the taxpayer. On the question of cost, it speaks for itself.

Then we go to the question of effectiveness, the third criteria for examining how you are going to deal with this challenge of climate change. Here again we had some interesting developments overnight in the assessment made of the environmental effectiveness of the plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. The net result of the plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is not to decrease Australia’s carbon pollution but to increase it by 13 per cent. Those opposite, through any independent and external analysis of what they have put forward, would know it does not come within a bull’s roar of the 138 megatonnes necessary to bring in a five per cent reduction on Australia’s overall emissions target. In fact, the conclusion of the Department of Climate Change, looking at it generously, is it would generate 40 million tonnes. That is the third factor. No. 1: they reject the science. No. 2: we accept the science.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister has now been speaking for over six minutes. If he cannot make his point in four he should sit down.

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

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. As he knows, there is no provision in the standing orders about the length of answers.

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

On the science, the difference is very clear. We accept the science; they reject the science. On the question of cost, they have chosen the most costly scheme and we have chosen the least costly scheme because it is market based. On effectiveness, our approach is simple: we will bring about a five per cent reduction in carbon pollution because we set a cap on pollution. Their scheme has been judged by the independent analysts of the Department of Climate Change as representing not a decrease in carbon pollution but an increase in carbon pollution.

On the question of global responsibility which the honourable Leader of the Opposition just referred to before, the commitments which have been made around the world so far are along the following lines: Japan has committed to a 25 per cent reduction on 1990 levels, the European nations have committed to between 20 and 30 per cent reductions on 1990 levels, the United States has committed to a 17 per cent reduction on 2005 levels, India has committed to reducing emissions intensity by 20 to 25 per cent and China has committed to reduce carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020.

These are the elements by which you analyse the policy, but it goes back to one thing: do you believe them? The Leader of the Opposition knows that he does not believe that climate change is happening. He said that the planet is in fact getting cooler, not warmer. His shadow environment minister has said today that he is wrong. He has said quite clearly to the parliament today that the Leader of the Opposition has given up. You know something? That is precisely what he has done because he thinks the politics is too rich a minefield to harvest and will leave the policy alone for the long term. The alternatives for Australia’s future are absolutely clear-cut: we stand for policy; you stand for politics.