Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her comments this morning on radio that she could not provide forecasts of China’s or India’s future carbon emissions. How does she reconcile that statement with the fact that Professor Garnaut provided her with a report just last month that shows that China’s emissions will triple and India’s will more than triple in the next 20 years? Can the Prime Minister explain how hitting every Australian with a carbon tax is in the national interest when the growth of emissions from China and India alone will completely undo any reductions in emissions in Australia? (Time expired)

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. Of course, we have been through these debates before. When we were reducing tariffs there were plenty of people who said, ‘Don’t do that until the rest of the world has done it,’ and fear was raised about the reduction of tariffs. What has been the outcome of that major economic reform? A more prosperous country that is more resilient to economic shocks, including the global financial crisis; more people in work; and a country that is making its way in the world. But on any day when we were involved in that major economic debate people said that we should not do those things; we should not reform our economy until the rest of the world had acted. To the great credit of the Liberal Party then it believed in economic reform. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party no longer believes in reform of anything. It no longer believes in putting the national interest in front of its political interest.

The answer to the honourable member’s question is that the rest of the world is moving. President Obama committed to 80 per cent of energy coming from clean energy sources by 2035. China is acting on climate change by closing small, inefficient, dirty power stations and replacing them with bigger, more economically efficient and environmentally friendly ones. China is making new commitments to climate change and to reducing greenhouse gases, including commitments to reducing its carbon emissions per unit of GDP. India is taxing coal from all sources in order to fund clean energy initiatives. India will in April move to an energy credits trading scheme.

These are the things that are happening around our world. Here we are in Australia with per capita the highest carbon polluting economy in the developed world. That means that the journey of transition that we need to make is a bigger journey. It is in our national interest.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask whether I should repeat the question. The Prime Minister is so all over the place and not answering the question, I ask you to bring her back to being relevant.

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

The Prime Minister will directly relate the material that she is using to the question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asked by the member for Goldstein if it was in Australia’s national interest to act. The answer I am giving leads to one conclusion: unambiguously yes. If you want a prosperous country in the future then you are for carbon pricing. If you want to make a difference to climate change and to the degree of carbon pollution emissions in our economy then you are for carbon pricing. If you do not care about jobs, if you do not care about the challenges of the future and if you do not care about the environment then you stick with your scare campaign. We know that the opposition do not care about any of them. The Leader of the Opposition does not care about the prosperity of this country and the future. The Leader of the Opposition does not care about doing the right thing by our environment. That is why, when faced with the choice to act in the national interest, we got this tawdry political display instead.

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

The member for Kennedy should thank the member for Braddon. The member for Kennedy has the call.