Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is a carbon price a more efficient way of investing in a clean—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hartsuyker interjecting

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

Order! The member for Cowper, who was the one that I heard, will withdraw.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the interjection was added to by the Leader of the Opposition, and he should also withdraw.

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

Mr Speaker, if it would assist the House, I withdraw.

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Perrett interjecting

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

Order! Member for Moreton, I think that when a line is drawn under an incident it does not assist to drag it out any further. The member for Greenway has the call.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is a carbon price, rather than direct action, a more efficient way of investing in a clean energy nation and why is it vital for the national interest?

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

I thank the member for Greenway for her question and for her strong representation of her local community in this place. As a strong representative of her local community who believes in coming into this place and acting in the national interest, she knows that it is in the national interest to tackle climate change and that it is in the national interest to price carbon and to create the right mix of incentives and rewards to enable the development of clean energy solutions.

At the moment you can put carbon pollution into the atmosphere for nothing. By pricing carbon, we will send a signal to the thousand biggest polluters in this country that there is a cost when they put carbon pollution into the atmosphere. As a result they will innovate and they will change. Australian businesses are very adaptable. They have adapted to economic reform in the past and they will do so again in the future. With the money raised from pricing carbon, you can assist Australian households, which we will do—and we will do so fairly because we are a Labor government—you can assist Australian industries make the transition and you can fund programs to tackle climate change.

In answer to the question from the member for Greenway, which asked me about the national interest, let me make some things very clear to the House. It is no wonder that shadow cabinet met twice to try to stop the shadow Treasurer belling the cat and confirming to the Australian people that, if we compensate and assist households through tax cuts, the opposition will take them away; if we assist households through direct increases in pensions, the Leader of the Opposition will take those increases away; and if we assist through direct payments, the Leader of the Opposition will take those away. We will assist Australian households and the Leader of the Opposition is committed to taking that assistance away.

But it gets worse than that—worse than taking money out of the purses and wallets of Australians. The Leader of the Opposition is committed to a failed plan which would see carbon pollution in our economy rise by 17 per cent by 2020—rising carbon emissions—or the Leader of the Opposition would rip $720 off Australians to pay for his $30 billion worth of failed plans. So more assistance but more tax to be paid by Australian families—decent people who understand that this is a big challenge which, in our national interest, we need to face up to.

Decent people work their way through the facts and they think about these things very deeply. The Leader of the Opposition has taken a different course. That stands in stark contrast to the things that have been done by Liberal leaders in the past. I would refer the House to the Shergold report, the report of the task group on emissions trading, which made it clear to Prime Minister Howard—which is why he adopted the scheme—that it is the most efficient way of pricing carbon. Unfortunately, the present Leader of the Opposition is not a fit successor to Liberal leaders past. He has repudiated the power of the markets. He has repudiated the national interest. He would prefer to act in his political interests with his fear campaigns than act decently in the interests of Australians.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr O’Dowd interjecting

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

I regret to inform the member for Flynn that he is suffering from the same problem that the member for Riverina suffered from earlier on, in that his projection does not get here to interrupt, but he should remain silent.

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, and it is a supplementary to the member for Greenway’s question. I refer the Prime Minister to comments—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

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

The Leader of the House will resume his seat.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! Just for the record, this is of course not being treated as a supplementary question. The member for Goldstein has the call and he has the right to ask a question.

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

I refer the Prime Minister to comments yesterday by the head of the Productivity Commission, Gary Banks:

… it will not be efficient from a global perspective (let alone a domestic one) for a carbon-intensive economy, such as ours, to abate as much as other countries that are less reliant on cheap, high-emission, energy sources.

I ask the Prime Minister: why is she insisting on introducing a carbon tax before the rest of the world that will close down industry, cost jobs, increase the cost of living and give our trade competitors an unfair advantage? (Time expired)

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order!

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

I will just say to the member for Braddon that I do not need any advice. If people want to talk on despite the limit to the duration of question time, that, I think, is sufficient a penalty for the whole House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it goes to the question and the amount of argument that was in that question, clearly making it out of order.

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

The question stands. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I thank the shadow finance minister for adding to the member for Greenway’s question—an unusual move! The shadow finance minister asked me about the Productivity Commission review of international carbon pricing, and I think this is an important piece of work; I do. Gary Banks spoke about it on behalf of the Productivity Commission, and, as usual, when the opposition comes into this place and quotes documents, they quote selected pieces or indeed just misquote them entirely, because I will refer the shadow finance minister to the conclusion of Mr Banks’s speech. He said these words in conclusion:

While we may not be able to deliver everything that some people expect, I am confident the study can shed light on what other countries are doing, how the various policies work, the uncertainties surrounding the efficacy of many of them, how much they achieve and at what cost.

This is the work that the Productivity Commission has been asked to do to provide a stream of advice about action that is happening in other nations to embrace a clean energy future. This is one of a number of important pieces of work that are informing the government as we deliberate on carbon pricing. Those pieces of work include the reports and updates that people have seen released by Professor Garnaut over the past few weeks. Of course, we will also be informed by Treasury modelling.

The point that the shadow finance minister should draw from that is that there will be abundant information and facts available about the key matters that require judgment in the national leadership. Is climate change real? Well, there were climate change scientists in this parliament today available to members, hosted on a bipartisan basis, to talk about how the science is real, even though the Leader of the Opposition goes around denying it. Then of course we have the economic advice about the efficient means of acting, and the most efficient means of acting is by putting a price on carbon. Then we will have the Productivity Commission work, which will add to other streams of knowledge about how the rest of the world is acting, including China, India and the United States. What this means is that the shadow minister—who is not prepared to act in the national interest but joins the Leader of the Opposition in his fear campaign—would prefer that the economic future of this country had us being left behind the clean energy future of the rest of the world, with all the loss of prosperity that that would provide.

As this parliamentary week draws to a conclusion, I believe members, particularly coalition backbenchers, will leave this place thinking about questions of judgment. They will go back to their electorates and think about the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition as he denies the climate change science. They will think about the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition as he shares a platform with Pauline Hanson, something John Howard would never have done.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I put it to you that, by any stretch of the bow, this is no longer directly relevant.

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

The member for Menzies will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will directly relate her remarks to the question. The Prime Minster.

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

I am talking about this parliament acting in the national interest; I am sure that should be relevant on all occasions. The government will continue to do that by pricing carbon, and people will look at the Leader of the Opposition, who called it wrong on the flood levy, who called it wrong on the health agreement, who is calling it wrong now and who particularly called it wrong yesterday, as a hollow man with no judgment.