Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister, and I ask this question on behalf of the thousands of people gathered outside Parliament House today who the Prime Minister would not talk to. I ask the Prime Minister: will she seek a mandate for her carbon tax before she introduces legislation into this House? Will she seek to make the next election a referendum on her unnecessary new tax?

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. On the question of attending the rally outside Parliament House today, I am not aware that I was invited. But, as I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition did not lack for red-headed company at that rally. He had a red-headed friend out at that rally, so I am sure he would not have missed me.

Let me turn to the substantive question that he has asked me about talking to the Australian people and campaigning for climate change action. The Leader of the Opposition seems to have forgotten that he sat in the Howard cabinet for years—a truly remarkable feat—and that he used to claim the Prime Minister as his political mentor. He sat in that cabinet day after day making decisions for the Howard government. Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that amongst the decisions the Howard government made was their decision to go to the 2007 election arguing for an emissions trading scheme. The Labor Party also went to the 2007 election arguing for an emissions trading scheme and we went to the 2010 election arguing for an emissions trading scheme.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Christensen interjecting

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

We understand that the Leader of the Opposition wants to continue his scare campaigns. He only knows one thing, which is to scare people, to try to make them afraid, and to deny the future. He has no positive policies and plans. What is remarkable is not his hollowness, because that is well-known; what is remarkable is that he would march away from the legacy of the Howard government at such a speed—march away from Prime Minister Howard’s commitments to an emissions trading scheme and march away from the Liberal Party philosophy about the power of the markets.

The Leader of the Opposition may be stuck in this denial and in his inability to make up a policy for the nation’s future, but we are not. We will get on with the job of leading this nation to a clean energy future. If you care about the jobs of the future, you want to price carbon. If you care about the environment, you want to price carbon. That is precisely what we will do.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is it important to the government that facts, not fear, be the basis for tackling climate change? How has pricing carbon and believing in climate change been an issue for the government—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Champion interjecting

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

The member for Wakefield! The member for Petrie has the call.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is it important to the government that facts, not fear, be the basis for tackling climate change? How has pricing carbon and believing in climate change been an issue for the government of Australia over the last two decades?

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

I thank the member for Petrie for her wonderfully perceptive question, because her question actually captures the major issue before this parliament today. I know the member for Petrie is someone who is in touch with her community and is out there having the real discussions with her community about this nation’s future, including the need to tackle climate change and to price carbon. As she does that, I know that she says to people in her community, in the wonderful state of Queensland, that we are a nation blessed with abundant sources of renewable energy.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The members for Dawson, Riverina, Braddon and Wakefield will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The members for Dawson, Riverina, Braddon and Wakefield then left the chamber.

The House will come to order! The Prime Minister has the call. She should be heard in relative silence.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was pointing to the fact that our nation is blessed with abundant sources of renewable energy—wind, geothermal and solar. We have abundant sources. If we look at solar energy, we have more solar radiation per square metre than any other continent in the world. In fact, we could power our country 500 times over if we were able to capture all of the solar energy in places where we could reasonably install solar panels. And if we used just one per cent of our estimated geothermal energy, we could supply roughly 25,000 times our energy consumption. These are great possibilities for our nation and great possibilities for its future. But, in order to realise those great possibilities, we need to get on with the job of pricing carbon.

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

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting

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

The member for Mackellar!

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

I am asked about a national debate—a national debate between fear and facts—

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

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting

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

The member for Mackellar is warned!

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

a national debate about pricing carbon and ensuring we do the right thing by our environment. I would like to remind people of some moments in that national debate. I have here the Liberal Party climate change policy from 1990. It has got Andrew Peacock on it, as of course it would, as he was the leader at the time. We all know that a souffle does not rise twice, but Mr Peacock did want to do something about rising greenhouse gases. And here we have his policy: a target to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 20 per cent by the year 2000—a more progressive man in 1990 than the Leader of the Opposition is today. When you look at the election policy, you see that he was arguing for a tax review to promote sound environmental practices in industry and he said that he would never resile from a willingness to act in the genuine national interest wherever that is required.

The history of Liberal engagement with this question goes on. Here is the environment policy from the days of John Hewson and Fightback. As I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition wrote Fightback. Maybe he wrote this as well: ‘a better environment and jobs’—their policy. This says: ‘Where possible, the coalition will look for market solutions to environmental problems. We will use market forces and realistic pricing mechanisms as the primary means of regulation.’ That is something the Liberal Party no longer believes in.

Then, from the 2007 election, we have all of these documents, with Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello committing the Liberal Party to action on climate change and an emissions trading scheme. Those were the days when the Liberal Party bothered to deal with facts. Now they have succumbed to this low point under the Leader of the Opposition, where all they deal in is fear. Does the Leader of the Opposition remember those days? (Time expired)

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is again to the Prime Minister, and I refer her to the statement of Greens party leader Bob Brown last night on 7.30 when he said that he did not force the Prime Minister to introduce a carbon tax. How does she reconcile his admission with her claim on 24 February that she broke her promise to not introduce a carbon tax because of the changed circumstances of this parliament? If Bob Brown did not make her break this promise, who did?

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, and let me advise him: I make my own decisions. I make my own decisions based on my convictions. When I work through policies for the government, I rely on facts. So how have I formed my view about climate change? Let me be very clear. I looked to the scientific community for what the scientific consensus was. I dealt with facts, not fear. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is in a flirtation with climate change denial. I have looked at the facts and at the science. I formed the view that we need to act. I have accepted economic advice from around the world—the same economic advice the member for Flinders accepted when he wrote his thesis and the same advice former Prime Minister Howard accepted when he released these documents and when the current Leader of the Opposition was in his cabinet. That advice was that the best way of acting on carbon pollution was to harness the power of the market and to have an emissions trading scheme.

I remind the House that in 2007 Prime Minister Howard actually went to the election promising ‘the most comprehensive emissions trading system anywhere in the world’. Post the 2010 election, we work in the parliament the Australian people voted for. In this parliament, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, we work with others to secure reforms in the national interest. I formed the view, working with the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee and understanding the views of members who are represented on that committee, including the Australian Greens, Mr Windsor and Mr Oakshott, that the best way of securing reform in this parliament, the way forward, was to bring a carbon pricing mechanism to the parliament, and I announced that carbon pricing mechanism. I had a choice between acting and not acting. I had a choice between acting in the national interest and failing to do so. I had a choice between accepting the science and engaging in denial. I had a choice between accepting quality economic advice and rejecting that advice. On every occasion, I made a choice to act—to accept the science, to accept the economic advice, and to work with this parliament to bring carbon pricing to this parliament.

Unfortunately, at every point the Leader of the Opposition has made a different choice: to flirt with climate change denial, to reject economic advice and the power of the markets, to turn his back on 20 years of Liberal engagement with reducing carbon pollution—most recently Prime Minister Howard’s promise to enact the most comprehensive emissions trading system anywhere in the world. In making that choice, the Leader of the Opposition was guided every step of the way by his political interest. He thinks it is in his political interest to be out there raising fear and scaring the community. Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that, on every judgment call he has needed to make in the nation’s interest on the question of climate change, he has called wrong. Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition too that the Australian community will hold him to account for that.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the evasions that we have just heard from her, I ask the Prime Minister: does she honestly believe that she would be in the Lodge today if, six days before the last election, she had been straight with the Australian people and said upfront to them, ‘Yes, there will be a carbon tax under the government I lead’?

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

I will answer the Leader of the Opposition first using these words:

No great challenge has ever yielded to fear or guilt. Nor will this one. Human ingenuity, directed towards clean technology and wise institutional design, remain our best weapon.

Who said that? John Howard said that. In respect of those who decried measures like carbon pricing, using markets or denying the science, he, former Prime Minister John Howard, said:

They are the real climate change deniers because they deny … rational, realistic and sustainable policy solutions.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition: how does he parade himself before the Australian people claiming to be dressed in the clothes of a Liberal leader?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was about the Prime Minister’s pre-election deceit, and she should be directly relevant to the question.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

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

Order! The galleries will come to order.

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

Ms Rishworth interjecting

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

The member for Kingston who is now within earshot and out of her place, should be very careful. The Prime Minister understands the need under the standing orders to be directly relevant to the question. She will relate her material to the supplementary question.

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

On the question the Leader of the Opposition has asked me, I say this first: how does he go before the Australian people dressed in the clothes of a Liberal leader and deny more than 20 years of Liberal engagement with the science of climate change and deny the tradition of the Liberal Party in engaging with markets? What I said to the Australian people before the last election is that climate change is real. I accept the science. It is caused by human activity. We need to act. The way to act is to introduce an emissions trading scheme, and we will get there. We will get to an emissions trading scheme, working with the parliament that the Australian people elected.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, reluctantly: she is defying your instruction to be directly relevant to the question.

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

Mr Hunt interjecting

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dreyfus interjecting

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

The member for Flinders and the parliamentary secretary for the minister for climate change will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The members for Flinders and Isaacs then left the chamber.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dutton interjecting

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

The member for Dickson will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

The member for Dickson then left the chamber.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I understand his frustration, that he believes that he is (a) not getting the answer he is trying to elicit and (b) not being answered in the way he would wish. I have said to this House that, if members want to improve the exchange in questions and answers, the simplest way of doing that is to apply the same rules to both, which would remove the argument. I regret to say that we confront a decision that I have to make on whether the response be argument or the placing of facts before the chamber and whether it is directly relevant or not. Whilst I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition believes he has asked a specific question for which he wants a direct answer, as I have stated throughout the year, that is not the standing order.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, further to the point of order: the question was about the Lodge, not the dodge. She should be directly relevant.

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is now advised that the latitude extended to leaders for this question time has been used. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying: I said to the Australian people before the 2010 election that I believed climate change was real. I said to the Australian people before that election that climate change was induced by human activity. It is induced by carbon pollution and we need to act on carbon pollution. I said to the Australian people the best way of addressing carbon pollution was to price carbon through an emissions trading scheme. And we will get there.

Of course I campaigned for majority government. I work now in the parliament the Australian people voted for, and in this parliament we will price carbon through the carbon mechanism that I announced, despite the fear campaign of the Leader of the Opposition, despite the campaign of denial and fear that he is raising. I also say to the Leader of the Opposition: if he wants to debate political honesty in this place, then bring it on—

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

Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question.

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

because did he go to the Australian people before the last election telling them about his $11 billion black hole? Did he go to the Australian people before the last election saying One Nation would write his economic policy? Did he go to the Australian people before the last election saying senior members of his frontbench, like the shadow Treasurer, would agitate for the return of Work Choices? No, he did not. So if we want to have a debate about political honesty, bring it on because we have the most hollow man with the least conviction sitting in the opposition’s leaders chair we have ever seen in this parliament. Bring it on; I am very happy to have it.

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

The Prime Minister will conclude her answer!

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

If those on my left would stop interjecting, the Prime Minister might have heard that I have asked her to conclude her answer. I will not be lectured by interjection.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, why is putting a price on carbon an important economic reform for Australia’s future; and what is the government’s response to recent expressions of opinion on the economics of a carbon price?

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

I thank the member for Oxley for this very important question because putting a price on carbon is the right thing to do for Australia. It is not an easy thing to do. There are no soft options and of course there are no cost-free options, but it is the right thing to do not just for the future of our country but also for the future of our economy.

There are diverse views in the community, and we welcome a full debate about global warming and what must be done about it. We welcome a frank debate, but that debate must be based on facts, not on fear. The behaviour that we have seen from the opposition, and particularly the opposition leader, today is that he is moving over to the fringe. He is moving over to the fear side of the argument and he does not want to confront the facts.

Yesterday he took offence in this House at being called a climate change denier. But out there today he was addressing a climate sceptics rally. Yesterday he was claiming he was somehow a believer in action on global warming but today he is out there addressing a rally of climate change sceptics.

I would like to quote from the website used by the group that was out the front of parliament today. Fair enough: they should be out expressing their opinions. I do not contest that for a moment. This is a debate about ideas. It should be a debate about ideas. It should be a debate about fact. But this is what the website that is used by those who were outside parliament today says—and everybody should listen very carefully:

CO2 is not pollution and does not need to be reduced in the first place …

It then goes on to say:

Any warming from CO2 is likely to be harmless.

He was out there today addressing a rally of climate change sceptics. Yesterday he took offence about being called a climate change denier. How can he have any credibility in here when he says he believes in dealing with global warming and goes out and addresses a rally of people who do not believe in dealing with global warming? How can he have any crediblity at all? He comes into this House and says he is a believer in markets and then he puts forward some Russian-style scheme to deal with changes in the environment.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question is out of order in that in contravention of standing order 100 it invites inferences, imputations and insults about the people who are in the rally today who are defenceless to defend themselves. Quite properly, the answer is in fact showing that the question is out of order in the first place, and indeed the member for Isaacs earlier in the chamber said across the chamber to me, ‘How could you associate with those people?’ The implications and the insults that are coming from that side of the House and the scare campaign means that the minister should be sat down.

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

Order! Having allowed the question and having it responded to for two minutes and 47 seconds, it is a bit late to be raising a point of order about the question. I would invite the Treasurer to conclude his answer and remind him of the requirement to be directly relevant to the question.

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

I am being directly relevant to the question. I was asked about views which have been expressed, because views have been expressed in this House by the Leader of the Opposition that they are concerned about the cost of living. Now we hear they want to rip that cost of living out, and we have had the most extraordinary article today in the Sydney Morning Herald by Lenore Taylor and Phillip Coorey where they get the yarn where they were in fact instructed in the shadow cabinet not to tell anybody they had taken a decision to rip out household assistance, should it be provided. These double standards are absolutely extraordinary. But poor old Joe let the cat out of the bag. The coffee was barely warm in the shadow cabinet before he got on the agenda and told the truth.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Randall interjecting

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

The member for Canning should quell his overexuberance before he gets invited to go for a cup of tea.

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: I am hoping that you will get the Treasurer to refer to members by their correct titles.

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

Order! The Treasurer will refer to members by their parliamentary titles.

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

It is one thing to be a climate change denier, if you are not wise or do not understand the science; it is entirely another thing to know the science and then go out and deny it. That is what we are getting from members opposite, including the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition, because their motivation is so low. They actually do know the science, but they deliberately ignore it and go out and run a fear campaign about something that is so important to our future—(Time expired)

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments of the Chairman of BlueScope Steel at the Press Club yesterday that China has a coal fired power system equal to more than 13 times Australia’s entire electricity generation and that between now and 2020 it is planning to add a further 60 per cent to its existing coal fired power generation. Why does the Prime Minister continue to insist, as she did yesterday in question time, that China is ahead of Australia in tackling climate change when she knows the opposite is true?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

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

Order! Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it is a bit early to try to get a supplementary, and the supplementary has been used.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

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

Order! No. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now being defiant. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I thank the member for her question. What I said yesterday to the parliament was accurate, and let me add to it today. Let me inform the member who asked the question that in 2009, for the second year in a row, both the US and Europe added more power capacity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, than from conventional sources. Let me also advise the member that renewables account for 60 per cent of newly installed capacity in Europe and more than 50 per cent in the US. At the same time, let me inform the member that China surpassed the US as the country with the greatest investment in clean energy.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Mirabella interjecting

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

Let’s just go through that sentence again because the member was yelling instead of listening. She pretends an interest in this question, but she is really just on the fear campaign. Let’s just go through that very slowly for her again. China surpassed the US as the country with the greatest investment in clean energy. Let’s just have a think about what that means for the future of the global economy and the economy of our region. We have the giant economy of China investing at that rate in clean energy, more than the United States. What should that imply to the member for Indi if she really stopped and thought about it? It should imply that China is making those investments for a purpose. It is making those investments because it too wants to tackle climate change. It should imply to the member for Indi that there will be huge economic possibilities for our nation as China invests. If we research and develop and are at the forefront, the cutting edge of this technology, imagine the wealth that could be generated. If we are there as a clean energy nation ourselves, able to export technologies and knowledge to a giant like China, imagine the wealth.

Of course, the member for Indi sits there and shakes her head because she is not interested in the facts and she is not interested in imagining the possibilities of the future. Let me say to the member for Indi: our future as a nation will be made by being a cleaner energy economy. We cannot afford to be left behind as giants like China and the US and the countries of Europe change and move. We cannot afford to be left behind. Prime Minister Howard understood this; Treasurer Peter Costello understood this.

The member who asked the question campaigned in the 2007 election on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. She was re-elected in this parliament in 2007 on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. I say to the members of the Liberal Party who are truly ashamed of this fear campaign, who are truly ashamed of how low the Liberal Party has fallen under this Leader of the Opposition: it is time for them to assert themselves and say unambiguously that they believe in the climate change science—

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let’s have an election and decide it.

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

The member for Cowan is now warned!

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

they believe in pricing carbon, they believe in what Prime Minister Howard promised in 2007 and they are prepared to work with the government in the national interest to create that clean energy economy of the future and get this done.