Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker by this chamber. Also, I am sure that there are many ex-students of Kerrimuir Primary School, which we both attended, who will be proud of what you have done.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on the government's strong, credible, effective and fair approach to reducing carbon emissions? What would be the impact of alternative proposals?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: there has for long time been a ruling in this place that questions asking for alternative policies were not part of a minister's responsibility. There is specific reference to it in House of RepresentativesPractice, and I ask that you rule out that part of the question—only that part at the end.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the question asks about alternative proposals, which cover not just the policies of political parties but all alternative proposals other than the government's suggested policies.

Opposition members interjecting—

So in fact the minister can range across a wide number of different proposals.

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To those opposite: I would like to hear the Manager of Government Business.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I was making was that the question asks about alternative proposals, which of course means that the minister can range across all suggestions about emissions reduction schemes and the costs to the economy, not just the sensitivities of the opposition on this matter. Of course, there have been many years of precedence of these questions being allowed even if they asked about alternative policies.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been many questions in this vein—

Opposition members interjecting—

Members on my left, I want to be able to address the chamber without a cacophony of interjections. Thank you. I think, in the interests of free-flowing debate, I am going to allow the question. I think there should be free-flowing debate. It can be robust. I call the Minister for the Environment.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I add my deep and personal congratulations; you deserve this honour. The member for Swan comes to this place as a tradie with real-world experience. In fact, he was an electrician, so he understands the value of electricity and its impact on individual lives when electricity costs skyrocket. Against that background, I thank him for this question, because he represents both a concern for the cost of living and a concern for the environment, and that is what we bring in the policy which we have framed today.

We have announced an emissions target for Australia of minus 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 to 2030. That puts us ahead of Japan, at minus 25 per cent; ahead of Korea, at minus four per cent; ahead of China, at plus 150 per cent; and comparable with the United States, at minus 26 to 28 per cent, and New Zealand and Canada.

But how are we getting there? We have an Emissions Reduction Fund which produced four times the reductions—and I want those opposite to understand this—in just the first auction, at a fraction of the cost (approximately one per cent of the cost per tonne of abatement), than Labor produced during the entire carbon tax experiment. So we have a system which will allow us to achieve our goal, which will do the right thing by the world, but which will not drive up electricity prices.

I am asked whether there are any alternative proposals, and there are. The Labor Party, in the last few weeks, has told us about an alternative proposal—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in making the earlier ruling, Mr Speaker, you took the point that was made by the Leader of the House, where the Leader of the House said it might not actually be Labor policies that they are asking about. Page 555 of Practicesays quite specifically:

The Speaker has been critical of the use of phrases at the end of questions, such as 'are there any threats to …', that could be viewed as intended to allow Ministers to canvass opposition plans or policies …

That is exactly what has happened and it is happening in the House right now, and I ask you to restore this House to the rulings that are in Practice.

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If members could cease interjecting. I am aware of some of the history of the practice. Certainly Speaker Jenkins, I think back in the early months of 2008, indicated that he had a strong view on the very point that the Manager of Opposition Business is making. Many members have been in this House a long time and you can read the Practice but, either way, for long periods of time these questions were allowed and I believe—

Government members interjecting—

I have just said to the members opposite that it was Speaker Jenkins back in 2008 and there have been rulings either way. I would like to have free-flowing debate and I think that goes for questions as well. I am going to call the Minister for the Environment and I am going to listen to what he says.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say, there have been alternative proposals established in recent weeks. We know at the ALP conference that they laid down a carbon tax but they would not call it a tax, but the member for Hunter, to his credit, said, 'You can call it a tax if you like'—not just once, not just twice but three times before the cock crowed did Joel call them out and call it a tax. He told us it was a tax. What does it mean? Only yesterday we saw the true costs of their own modelling of their own policy. Their own tax showed a $209 price, a $600 billion cost and a $5,000 per family hit—their modelling and their tax showed a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices. We will make real reductions but we will do it without an electricity tax. They have failed to make real reductions and they will impose a crushing electricity tax. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the minister for Port Adelaide. The member for Port Adelaide, not the minister—I elevated you unintentionally.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister today release the government's full data and modelling on how Australia will meet its international commitments on climate change?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is modelling and it will shortly be released. I can give the member who asked the question a bit of a foretaste of that modelling. Let's be honest and up-front with the parliament and with the people of Australia: if there is going to be significant emissions reduction there will be a cost. There is no entirely cost-free way of significantly reducing our emissions. The modelling that was done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade shows that a 26 per cent reduction in our emissions on 2005 levels by 2020 will cost the economy in the year 2030 between 0.2 and 0.3 per cent of GDP, so the overall cost to the economy of this will be in the order of $3 to $4 billion. The modelling also shows that a cut in the order of 40 per cent will cost more like two per cent of GDP—a massive hit on our economy, a massive hit on jobs and a massive hit on families which this government will never impose.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Port Adelaide. The Prime Minster will resume his seat.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have concluded my answer.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why have you set pollution reduction targets that are less than half of what the government's independent Climate Change Authority has recommended? If every country adopted targets like these, we would be on the road to four degrees of global warming. Haven't you just chosen to appease the deniers instead of satisfying the science? Isn't this just a weak and dangerous target from a weak and dangerous government?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least the member who asked the question is honest and upfront about the Labor-Greens target. At the Labor Party conference the other week they committed to an emissions reduction target entirely in line with the Climate Change Authority's recommendation, which was 40 to 60 per cent—that would be a two per cent reduction in the size of our economy if the Labor-Green policy were adopted. Not only would there be a two per cent reduction in the size of our economy if the Labor-Green policy were adopted but there is a carbon tax of more than $200 a tonne—part of the electricity tax scam which the Leader of the Opposition wants to foist on the Australian people—and there is a massive $85 billion overbuild of renewable energy capacity thanks to the 50 per cent renewable target that the Leader of the Opposition has also committed himself to.

To get back to the precise question that the member for Melbourne has asked, our commitment of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction is entirely in line with the United States commitment, a little less than the New Zealand commitment, somewhat more than the Japanese commitment, much more than the Korean commitment and immeasurably better than the Chinese commitment and, when it comes to emissions reduction per person, the very best in the developed world. This is a strong and responsible position that the government has adopted. It is environmentally responsible and it is economically responsible. Unlike members opposite, we are not going to clobber the economy to protect the environment. We appreciate that the best way to protect the environment is to have a strong economy too. The best way to protect the environment is to have more Australians in jobs in an economy which is growing strongly—and that is exactly what people will get under this government.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, congratulations on being in the seat. My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister inform the House why Australia's 2030 emissions reductions target is a responsible contribution to the international response to climate change?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. The government is committed to being a positive, constructive player in the international response to climate change. The 2030 emissions reduction target that we announced today is responsible, it is achievable, and it is a contribution which is in step with the efforts of other developed countries. Climate change is a global challenge that requires a global response. We are already working with other countries to deliver practical action on climate change, including through our $200 billion contribution to the Green Climate Fund and our $28 million contribution to the Global Green Growth Institute. The government is committed to achievable action on climate change, and we have an impressive track record already. Unlike most other nations, Australia not only met our first Kyoto target under the Kyoto protocol—we exceeded it. We are now on track to meet and beat our 2020 target as well.

In the context of the forecasts of our population growth and our economic growth, our 2030 target is credible, appropriate, fair and environmentally and economically sound and responsible for our national circumstances. It is a significant increase from our 2020 target, and Australia will reduce per capita emissions at a far greater rate than most other countries, including those in the EU and including the United States, Japan, China and Korea. We will halve our emissions per person over the next 15 years, and without a carbon tax. We have been inventive, we have been creative but we have always been responsible in meeting our climate change commitments while protecting the living standards of Australians and ensuring that our economy can continue to grow and jobs will continue to grow.

I have been asked what is a responsible contribution in international terms. This is a responsible contribution. What is not responsible is Labor's endorsement of a carbon reduction target of up to 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2030. It is not responsible to reintroduce a carbon tax—a supercharged carbon tax—to do it, and Labor's own modelling shows it will hit wages, reduce household incomes and drive up electricity prices. That is the Labor way.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is this relevant given the question went nowhere towards opposition policies?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is absolutely entitled to canvas the debate.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

It is very difficult to make a ruling if you keep interjecting, member for Jagajaga. The minister has been asked a question; she is entitled to range within the policy topic—

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

Range?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Within the policy topic, but I would ask her to be relevant to the question in her remaining 30 seconds.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was asked about a responsible contribution to the international effort. We will take a responsible target to the Paris meeting on climate change at the end of the year. It is environmentally sound, it is economically sound, it will not hit wages or reduce household incomes, it will not reintroduce a carbon tax, as the Labor Party has proposed, and it is environmentally and economically credible, sound and responsible.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is human activity the main cause of climate change?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Climate change is important. Humanity makes a very significant contribution and that is why governments need to adopt strong and effective policies to deal with it.