Mr DREYFUS (12:25 PM) —It is extraordinary to come here and listen to members opposite persisting with the pretence that the coalition actually cared about the environment and persisting with the pretence that they are still in government.

Opposition members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Members on my left will desist from interjecting. The member for Isaacs has the call.

Mr DREYFUS —It is a pleasure to be here on World Environment Day to make some comments about the environmental measures that are contained in these appropriation bills. It was also extraordinary to hear from the Leader of the National Party not a question or a comment—

Mrs Gash —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is question time for the ministers and the opposition to ask questions. There is time in the adjournment debates to make statements.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Member for Gilmore, I have ruled on that point of order. This is not a question time, but the statements must be directed to the minister’s relevant portfolio.

Mr DREYFUS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If it were question time, we would not have heard a five-minute speech from the member for Murray. We have not heard anything to do with appropriation bills from the Leader of the National Party.

Opposition members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Isaacs has the call and he will direct his statements to the relevant portfolio before the chair.

Mr DREYFUS —I am endeavouring to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —And I am endeavouring to listen.

Mr DREYFUS —The Leader of the National Party, in his comments, directed not one single word to the appropriation bill that the minister in the Main Committee is responsible for but rather persisted with an attack on the Queensland state government—not content with having done so a few days ago in the House on a notice of motion.

The comments that I would direct to the environmental aspects of the appropriation bill are to draw attention to the fact that this budget places care for the environment, care for our land and care for our country at the centre of national policy—and it could not provide a starker contrast with what the previous government was engaged in. The community was offered two very distinct approaches at the last federal election, and it has made the choice—and the choice in the environmental area was a stark one.

In the international arena, we had a choice between the Liberal Party, which stubbornly refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and acted as a spoiler on international climate change negotiations and the Rudd Labor government, whose first act was the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, which has given Australia a seat at the international negotiating table on climate change, where Australia is going to be able to play a significant role in the future—a role that was denied it by the actions of the former government. In terms of science, we had a choice between the former Prime Minister, who said that a five-degree increase in temperature would be, to use his words, ‘uncomfortable for some’, and a Rudd Labor government which accepts the science, a Rudd Labor government that has listened to the experts and is acting accordingly.

On emissions targets there was a very sharp choice between a Liberal Party with no targets for reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and a Rudd Labor government which is now committed to reducing Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050. On emissions trading, the Liberal Party’s pre-dawn conversion to a scheme the previous Prime Minister had spent years blocking then grudgingly moved to accepting a start date of 2012, while the Rudd Labor government—(Time expired)