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 her words on ABC TV last month, 'I've always believed we had to price carbon.' I ask: if the Prime Minister has always believed in a price on carbon, why did she say in the last week of the election campaign, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'?

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. Of course, I have always believed that we need to put a price on carbon and we will. I am reinforced in my belief about the need to put a price on carbon by the fact that so many people agree with me. Here on the Labor side we agree with pricing carbon. Many, many Australians, including eminent Australians who have come out today, are having their voices heard on pricing carbon. We have had Australians attend rallies about pricing carbon. I have had support from many different quarters on this. I would thank, for example, the member for Flinders—

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

Order! The Prime Minister will resume her place. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, the question was very specific. Why did she say one thing before an election and a different thing after an election? Why was she untruthful with the Australian public? She should be called back to the question.

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his place. The Prime Minister will respond to the question; she knows her obligations under the standing orders.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was asked about my views on pricing carbon, and I am reaffirming to the Leader of the Opposition and to the House that I have always believed we needed to price carbon in order to cut carbon pollution and tackle climate change. Of course, I am reinforced in this belief by the widespread community support for it. I am reinforced in this belief by support from unusual sources including the member for Flinders who has supported pricing carbon by saying:

Perhaps the most important domestic policy was the decision of the Howard Government that Australia will implement a national carbon trading system.

Or the support I have received from the member for North Sydney, and I thank him for it. He said:

… inevitably we'll have a price on carbon … we'll have to.

Or the support I have received from the member for Aston who said: 'The government's role should be to create the market environment that will lead to the outcomes sought either through putting a price on CO2 or other mechanisms.' Or the member for Moore; I thank him for his support. He said: 'If we don't price carbon both sides of politics will be guilty of putting up stupid feel good programs that are not cost effective.' Or the member for Wentworth; I thank him for his support for pricing carbon. He said:

My views on climate change, the need for a carbon price, the fact that market-based mechanisms are the most efficient ways of cutting emissions, my views are the same today as they were when I was part of John Howard's Cabinet.

And those views were held by the Howard government. I have to say, I even thank the Leader of the Opposition for his periodic support for pricing carbon because, of course, the Leader of the Opposition has been known to go out and advocate a carbon tax from time to time. He most particularly did so on 29 July 2009 when he said:

If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax?

He went on to extol the merits of a carbon tax. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has had so many positions on pricing carbon that it led the member for Wentworth, in desperation, to describe him as a political weathervane. He needed to go out that day and check the political winds in order to work out whether or not he believed climate change was real or whether we should price carbon. As opposed to the weathervane politics that we see through the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr Simpkins interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Cowan is warned.

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

I am determined and the government is determined to get on with the job of pricing carbon. It is in the national interest and we will pursue that national interest. We will allow the Leader of the Opposition to get on with his stupid oppositional political games, working out what he believes in by checking the political winds. We will do the right thing for the nation.

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

Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister was not truthful when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' and if the Prime Minister was not truthful when she said that she would never challenge the former Prime Minister for his job, how can people believe anything she says now?

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

I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to the standing orders for questions without notice. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might have got away with that question if it had been in writing but, given that he gave it verbally to the House, it clearly is out of order under the standing orders with regard to argument.

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

The first part of the point of order of the Leader of the House I would correct. If it had been a question on notice it definitely would have been out of order because there are much more stringent rules applied. Secondly, there were two aspects of the question that cause me a dilemma. One was the argument, and also it is stretching the friendship on the supplementary question. But, as I have said, the consequence of me allowing a question like that is that it widens the scope of the response. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition's question I have always believed that we needed to price carbon, I have always believed that climate change was real and I have always believed that it was in the nation's interest to tackle climate change—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.

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

Of course, I am answering the Leader of the Opposition's questions on the respective positions on pricing carbon. So on this side of the parliament I, as Prime Minister, am saying to the Australian people climate change is real—I have always believed that—and that to tackle climate change and cut carbon pollution the best way of doing that is pricing carbon—I have always believed that. And let us do the contrast on consistency with the Leader of the Opposition. He said on 9 June this year: '... in the end no-one is really convinced the best way to go is a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.' Now through those words what we have actually seen is a Leader of the Opposition who has become so negative, so addicted to negativity, that he is now, in fact, being negative about himself, because it is the Leader of the Opposition who has, at earlier points in time, advocated a price on carbon. Tony Abbott, Daily Telegraph blog, 19 December 2008: 'An emissions trading scheme probably is the best way to put a price on carbon.' Tony Abbott in 'A realist's approach to climate change', 27 July 2009: 'Still, a new tax would be the intelligent sceptic's way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the—

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 what the Prime Minister said before the election, so her untruthful words before the election, and she should be called back to the question.

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

The Leader of the Opposition knows that he has recharacterised his supplementary question and he has sailed very close to the wind both in the question and in the point of order. I indicate that after this question and response there will not be as much leniency as to both the questions and the responses. The Prime Minister has the call and she will be heard in silence.

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

On 27 November 2009 these words were spoken before the election by the Leader of the Opposition: 'You can't have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS at this time.' The Leader of the Opposition's track record, time after time on any given day, is to say what he thinks is in his political interest. Well, climate change is too profound a challenge to our planet and to our nation for him to wake up in the morning and work out, as the Leader of the Opposition does, what he thinks is in his narrow political interest that day. What we have to do, in cutting carbon pollution, is deal with the nation's interest, day after day after day, and the nation's interest requires us, with a high-carbon pollution emissions economy, to start the journey now towards a clean energy future. It requires us to do that in the most cost-effective way and, of course, the most cost-effective way is by putting a price on carbon. Now the Leader of the Opposition, day after day in this place, makes the mistake that if you bellow loud enough people will think you are right. Of course, what shows you are right is that you are prepared to step up and deal with the challenges of the future. Many members of his own political party are challenging him to do that and he should heed their calls. As he heeds their calls he should remember his own words and perhaps be guided by them: 'An emissions trading scheme probably is the best way to put a price on carbon'—never a truer word was spoken and the author: Tony Abbott.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister outline the importance to Australian families and jobs of moving to a clean energy future? How has this been received and what is the government's response?

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

I thank the member for Braddon for his question. Taking action on climate change now is very important for future generations. To mitigate the risk to our environment, our economy, and our society of the long-term effects of climate change, we have got to start the hard work of cutting pollution and driving investment in clean energy. As Australia is one of the most emissions intensive economies in the world, the task for us is more challenging than most other countries. That is why the government is pursuing a carbon price, because it is the lowest cost way for us to cut our pollution and, therefore, it is the lowest cost way of tackling climate change for Australian families and Australian industries.

The revenue from a carbon price can also be used to provide assistance to households and to support jobs in the most affected industries. Those measures to assist families and support jobs are a key feature of the government's approach—an approach that is well known to the opposition. But that does not deter the Leader of the Opposition from his fear campaign, a campaign full of exaggeration, misinformation and misrepresentation.

It is instructive to look at how extreme and shrill some of the Leader of the Opposition's statements have become. He stated, in the full knowledge of the government's commitment to assist pensioners and low- and middle-income households and that the price impacts will be modest, that 'the hit on Australians' cost of living is almost unimaginable'. He knows the government is committed to providing assistance to pensioners and low- and middle-income households, he knows the impact will be modest, but he misrepresents the position consistently.

He has claimed, in the full knowledge that the government will be providing assistance to support jobs in the most affected industries, that whole manufacturing industries will be wiped off the map, that towns will be wiped off the map.

Mr Chester interjecting—

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

The member for Gippsland will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Gippsland then left the chamber.

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

The Leader of the Opposition knows that across the coal industry the price per tonne of coal is modest indeed. At an example of $20 per tonne carbon price, the impact on the price per tonne of coal mined for methane emissions is around $1.60 per tonne. This does not prevent the Leader of the Opposition going to the Minerals Council of Australia meeting a week or two ago and claiming it would be the death and destruction of the coal industry—ridiculous hyperbole, increasingly shrill.

It does not matter that the Productivity Commission does a report identifying 1,000 policies in the economies of seven of our trading partners; he still goes out and claims that Australia will be going it alone against the rest of the world—increasingly ridiculous claims. As we heard yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition in the past has strongly advocated that a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme is the best way to go. He said, 'If you want to put a price on carbon why not do it with a simple tax?' As a self-described weathervane, misrepresenting yourself as well as everyone else is now just a tool of the trade.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the comments by the former member for Throsby and ACTU president Jennie George who has joined the head of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, in calling for steel to be exempted from a carbon tax. Prime Minister, is not Jennie George right when she states that 'there is no compensation for a job that is lost'?

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

I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I did see those statements by Jennie George. I believe that they were published yesterday. Of course, Jennie George was a great member of this place and someone who had devoted her life to representing working people, starting her life in the teachers union and then moving to the ACTU. When you look at Jennie George's letter, she was pointing to the circumstances of the steel industry. I certainly understand that the steel industry is under a great deal of pressure. It is under a great deal of pressure because of the transformation that we are seeing in the Australian economy. It is a transformation—with mineral prices and the resources industry where they are now and the growth that that industry is experiencing, the terms of trade that we see now, our dollar at a very high level and that level being sustained—that is putting pressure on industries like the steel industry. The pressure is on their shoulders right now; that pressure was on their shoulders last year. This is pressure on the steel industry as a result of the economic transformation in our economy. Of course we are concerned about these circumstances and have been having discussions and working with the steel industry on its future.

Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—

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

The member for Cowper is warned!

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

I also understand, as we move to pricing carbon, that we will need to keep working with the steel industry. We want to see people having jobs in steel, and we will keep working productively with the steel industry as we design the carbon pricing scheme. The member for Gilmore has tried through the phrasing of her question to get some sense of division into it. If the member for Gilmore is concerned about questions of division she may want to direct her attention to another report yesterday, a report of a senior Liberal in the Sydney Morning Herald who said:

You can't take money away from pensioners, it would kill us.

The member for Gilmore might like to express her view on clawing money back from Australian pensioners—

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.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The House should reflect on the combative nature of question time today. It has been characterised by people not even sitting quietly when their own side is trying to get the call. I find that amazing. If the House were to reflect on this, it would understand that those outside expect better from all of us—and I am conscious that that includes me. I call the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister is ranging a very long way from the question she was asked. If she has run out of material, you should direct her to take a seat.

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

Again I indicate to the Manager of Opposition Business that he should contain himself to his point of order and not add argument that really does not assist him. The Prime Minister is straying from the question and she must indicate in her response how the material that she is using is directly relevant to the question.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member for Gilmore has asked me a question about the steel industry and job security and carbon pricing. At the end of the day, when we deal with carbon pricing and we deal with jobs for Australian workers, we have to come back to first principles about what will create the most prosperous clean energy economy we can have in the future. We on this side of the parliament believe as we create a clean energy economy that polluters should pay, not Australian families. We believe that money should go to support Australian families; you believe in taking it away from Australian families. We believe in protecting Australian jobs and seeing a future of prosperity with a clean energy economy; the Liberal Party has never believed in protecting Australian jobs. You cannot have concern about job security and be a supporter of Work Choices.

The choices here are simple—we want to cut carbon pollution; you would see it rise. We want polluters to pay; you would see families pay. We want to give money to Australian families; you want to take it from them. We want to protect Australian jobs; you have never shown the slightest concern for job security. The member for Gilmore might want to reflect on that when she considers the future for Australian workers.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Trade. Will the minister advise the House of the risk of retaliation by Australia's trading partners if Australia fails to put a price on carbon? Will the minister inform the House of recent support for a price on carbon? What is the government's response?

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The question has been asked.

Mr Robb interjecting—

The member for Goldstein will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).

The member for Goldstein then left the chamber.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my friend and colleague the member for Blair for his question. I can advise him that there would be every prospect of countries that do proceed with carbon pricing retaliating against Australian exporters if we sought to have a free ride into their markets at the expense of their industries. Any delay would create a new excuse for protectionism to take hold in our export markets, which would be very damaging to our exporters. A recently released Productivity Commission report finds that Australia's top five trading partners—China, Japan, the United States, Korea and India—have implemented carbon pricing in one form or another at the national, state or city level. Far from going it alone, it is clear that Australia is around the middle of the pack in our efforts to put a price on carbon.

I am asked by the member for Blair about support for a carbon price. We have seen in the newspapers today support for pricing carbon from leading Australians including Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, Fiona Stanley and Patrick McGorry—I understand that the coalition accepts that Patrick McGorry is a great Australian, as are Dr Fiona Stanley and Ian Kiernan, amongst others. There is another contributor to this debate about putting a price on carbon, and that other contributor has had this to say, sensibly:

... a new tax would be the intelligent sceptic's way to deal with minimising emissions ...

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who said that?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who said that? That is a good question. Who said a new tax would be an intelligent sceptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions? I do not think it could be the member for Wentworth because he is not a sceptic and he is intelligent. I do not think it could be the member for Flinders because he is not a sceptic and he is intelligent. I do not think it could be the member for Dickson because he is a sceptic—well, I will move on.

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. The Minister for Trade was asked a question about trade retaliation, which he has not addressed at all yet in his answer; instead, he has just attacked members of the opposition. I invite you to sit him down.

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

There are a number of parts to the question. The minister appears to be addressing one of those parts. Unlike the member for Sturt in his point of order, I am not going to critique the answer. Potentially, this could be directly relevant and I will listen to where this answer is going. The minister knows his responsibility to be directly relevant.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am responding to that part of the question which asked, 'Will the minister inform the House of recent support for a carbon tax and what is the government's response?' There has been recent support for a carbon tax by an intelligent sceptic. We know he is a sceptic because he said, 'I'm not sure about carbon dioxide being the villain that it is made out to be; the science is not settled.' So who is this self-professed intelligent sceptic? None other than the Leader of the Opposition. Come on, join us! The opposition leader should join us because he is an intelligent sceptic and he is on the record. It is written down so it is the gospel truth, not in the heat of the moment, and it must be true. What words is he speaking? He is speaking the words of a cheapjack opportunist. From this intelligent sceptic we have another commitment—that is, he will claw back any pension increases. His frontbench is right:

You can't take money away from pensioners, it would kill us.

On 1 July 2012 it will be the opportunist day of reckoning when the Leader of the Opposition seeks to take money back from pensioners. We will implement a carbon tax. We will put a price on carbon because it is the right thing to do for Australia and it is the right thing to do for the environment. The intelligent sceptic over there ought to get on board.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister, who is someone who might be able to answer the question, unlike the minister opposite. I refer her to the comments by the Minister for Resources and Energy that the carbon tax could 'fall over' if the Greens do not agree to compensation for the coal industry. With this minister admitting that the coal industry will be threatened by a carbon tax and Jennie George joining Paul Howes in warning against a carbon tax on the steel industry, is it not time that the Prime Minister settled the divisions and the uncertainty by asking the Australian people what they think at an election?

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

I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. He has once again disappointed the Leader of the House, but one of these days I am sure he will make the Leader of the House's day by asking him a question on infrastructure. In answer to the Leader of the National Party's question, we are determined to work with coal as we are determined to work with business generally in order to get the design of carbon pricing right. We will be working to ensure that we are protecting Australian jobs. We are cutting carbon pollution. We are assisting Australian families. We are funding programs that get us ready for the clean energy economy of the future and that tackle climate change.

The Leader of the National Party asks me on these debates about pricing carbon, 'Who takes what position in these debates?' I say to the Leader of the National Party that perhaps he might want to explain to me who the senior Liberal was who said:

You can't take money away from pensioners, it would kill us.

The Leader of the National Party says that he is interested in Australian jobs and the future of the coal industry—

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. The Prime Minister keeps raising this point about the pension but she was the cabinet minister who did not even want pensioners to get a rise in their pensions, so how can it be directly relevant to the question? I ask you to draw her back to the question.

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

The Prime Minister is aware of the obligations under the standing orders.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to disorderly conduct. On a number of occasions but none more blatantly than the last one, the Manager of Opposition Business, in the guise of raising a point of order, has chosen to make a debating point. It is clearly disorderly. You have already indicated to the Manager of Opposition Business that such action was disorderly and I ask you to take action.

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

The action I will take is that I will call the Prime Minister.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! It is not a matter for derision. For those who think it is, it may be a faint victory as they observe proceedings from outside.

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

I understand that members of the opposition frontbench will do anything to distract Australians from the very simple truth behind this carbon pricing debate. And the very simple truth behind this carbon pricing debate is that I believe climate change is real; the Leader of the Opposition does not. I believe we have to cut carbon pollution; the Leader of the Opposition has plans to see carbon pollution rise. I believe big polluters should pay; the Leader of the Opposition wants to take funds from Australian families and give them to big polluters. I believe Australian families and pensioners should be assisted; the Leader of the Opposition wants to claw that assistance away from pensioners and Australian families—take money away from people who are already challenged by cost-of-living pressures. I want to protect Australian jobs, which is why the government have a proud record of supporting Australian employment, including during the global financial crisis and continuing with that support to the present day with 750,000 jobs created so far and half a million more to be created in the two years to come. The Leader of the Opposition literally slept through the key measures to support Australian jobs during the days of the global financial crisis. He literally could not be bothered getting out of bed to protect the Australian jobs. Through their interjections and bellowing, through their belief that if you shout loud enough someone will believe you, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition just wants to distract from all of this. But the truth could not be clearer. We will put a price on carbon pollution. We will put it on the big polluters. We will provide assistance to Australian families. We will protect Australian jobs. And we will tackle climate change.