Arch Bevis (Brisbane, 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. Why does Australia need to take action on climate change and what is the importance of expert policy advice in developing effective action to reduce carbon emissions?

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

I would like to thank the member for Brisbane for his question. The climate science is very clear and so is the economics, and the fact of the matter is that an emissions trading scheme is the least costly, most economically efficient way of reducing carbon pollution. That conclusion, of course, is based on extensive research and analysis. There have been major reports, such as the UK’s Stern review, considered internationally. Within Australia, the government of course has had regard to all of the advice available to it, from Treasury to the Department of Climate Change and the work done by Professor Garnaut—reflected, of course, in the government’s green and white papers.

As the Prime Minister indicated earlier, the previous Prime Minister, John Howard, embraced an emissions trading scheme and took it to the last election on the basis of his own extensive report, the Shergold review. The fact of the matter is that the new Leader of the Opposition not only repudiates the science but has abandoned all pretence of sound economics as well. His policy is all dishonest posturing, a pretence and a con job. There was some mention made a couple of moments ago about Mr Danny Price from Frontier Economics. The interesting thing, of course, is that at his press conference releasing this policy the Leader of the Opposition asserted that Frontier supported the policy and said that Frontier thought it was economically and environmentally responsible. But, going through Mr Price’s comments on 2GB, he said, ‘Our reputation is extremely important to us,’ and then went on to say, ‘We’ve never said anything about whether that is more cost effective’—referring to the Liberal Party policy—‘than the CPRS, so it has been a very limited review in this case.’ I would not call that a sound endorsement of the policy.

But, worse than that, the Leader of the Opposition has now aligned himself with Margaret Thatcher’s former offsider, Lord Monckton, who we know, of course, to be the champion of climate change sceptics. This is a man who the Leader of the Opposition met last night and who said that the international climate change negotiations are ‘about to impose a communist government on the world’.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Anthony Smith interjecting

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

You look a bit excitable there, mate. Just relax. Lord Monckton said the climate change negotiations were ‘about to impose a communist government on the world’. Sounds a bit like Senator Minchin, doesn’t it? Lord Monckton also called young climate activists in Copenhagen ‘Hitler Youth’. That is what Lord Monckton had to say. This is the astonishing thing: this guy is even too way out there for Senator Joyce. This is what Senator Joyce, the shadow finance minister, had to say. This is extraordinary:

Obviously I and my constituency have some doubts (about the science) but when you find yourself waltzing with the fringe you should take a step back..

You ought to have a listen to that one, mate. You are way out there.

On the economics, the Leader of the Opposition claims that his policy will reduce emissions by five per cent, and we know that claim to be dishonest; emissions will continue to rise. The Department of Climate Change, as it was reported today, confirms that this is a con job and that emissions are forecast to rise by 13 per cent on year 2000 levels. The advice goes on to say:

The Emissions Reduction Fund is far more complex than has been implied by the Opposition, and certainly more difficult to implement than the CPRS.

It is bad economics, it is bad for the environment and it is a repudiation of the science. Their proposal will cost more and do less, and it is not funded. Any member of this House who accepts the science and respects sound economics will support the legislation that is being debated in this House now. It was accepted by that side of politics less than 10 weeks ago. It is sound public policy. Yours is a farce.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. The minister should refer his remarks through the chair even in climactic conclusions. The member for O’Connor has the call on a point of order.

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

I wish to ask that the minister table his speech or otherwise have it incorporated in Hansard to save us a bit of time.

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

The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. Was the minister quoting from a document? Was the document confidential?

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. I ask the minister to table the Danny Price transcript from which he was reading.

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

If there is a document that was in the public arena—like a transcript that is not part of a confidential brief—he would have to table. If the minister has not quoted from such a document, I am not empowered to ask him to.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! I am seeking clarification. I am trying to do justice to your point of order. You are not being helped by the member for Boothby who misinterpreted what I had said. I am indicating to the minister that if he had quoted from a document which was a public transcript, he would be required to table that document. That is as far as I can go. If he is informing the House that he was quoting from confidential documents, the practice of the House has been that that is the conclusion of the matter.