Mr CIOBO (3:04 PM) —I refer the Prime Minister to the Frontier Economics report which was released yesterday. Frontier’s analysis shows that, under the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme, the increase in typical small business power bills will be 90 per cent higher than it would be under Frontier’s proposals. Prime Minister, why will small businesses have to pay higher power bills because of the government’s unwillingness to consider cheaper, greener and smarter alternatives to its flawed emissions trading scheme, or will it be ‘lights out’ for small business under Labor as well?

Mr RUDD (Prime Minister) —If we are going to deal with the challenge of climate change it means we have to deal with the price of carbon. Dealing with the price of carbon affects the price of electricity. I draw the attention of those opposite to a statement by my predecessor, the former member for Bennelong and former Prime Minister, who said as much when standing at this dispatch box about the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. For those opposite to pretend that those consequences do not flow frankly suggests they are engaged in politics rather than a real debate about policy.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr RUDD —Those opposite scoff at the notion that they may be engaged in a debate about politics at the moment. When it comes to climate change, we have been in this House for a long time now and we have not received a single question from those opposite on climate change. Why? Because they could not organise themselves in a unity ticket in a brown paper bag, let alone come to the dispatch box with an agreed position on climate change. Therefore, for the honourable member to stand at the dispatch box and say that there will be no impact when it comes to electricity prices as a consequence of a CPRS simply is a flight from economic reality which the former Prime Minister of Australia himself embraced when he spoke about the need for this country to move in the direction of an emissions trading scheme—also, I would have thought, a position which those opposite embraced when they themselves, at least it seemed, embraced the need for action on climate change through a cap-and-trade scheme.

But those opposite again have intervened on the question of politics. Again, the climate change deniers and the climate change sceptics of the Liberal Party and the National Party are running policy. That is why they cannot reach a concluded position on climate change. For example, remember that one of the leadership aspirants on the part of those opposite, the shadow minister for health—I refer to Mr Abbott—said on 27 July:

I would have thought that the shadow minister in question—

Ms Julie Bishop —Which one?

Mr RUDD —Can I just say ‘Mr Abbott’, because we do lose track of what portfolios those opposite are responsible for. Can I say in relation to—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: apart from the fact that the Prime Minister should be referring to members by their titles, how can this answer be relevant? He does not actually know who he is talking about. More importantly, he was asked about the 90 per cent higher power price—

The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will respond to the question and refer to members by their titles.

Mr RUDD —I am reliably informed it is the shadow minister for families. But I do recall him recently standing up and launching a book about his future leadership aspirations, among other things. On 27 July he said:

One would have thought that the shadow minister for families speaks with some authority in terms of the shadow cabinet—but it seems not. And then, of course, we have the member for Goldstein, who has been on his feet this morning. He said that, instead, we should be putting more into proving up the science on climate change. This is the shadow minister whom I thought responsible for bringing forth policy on climate change. His response is that we should be putting more money into proving up the science.

Mr Ciobo —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister has been waffling on for three minutes and there has been not one mention of small business by the Labor Party. There has been not one single mention of 2.4 million small businesses—

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat, and he is warned. He can make his point of order but he cannot then debate it in that manner.

Mr RUDD —And then we have that extraordinary statement to the Sydney Morning Herald, which is one of my favourites. On 28 July, when asked about an emissions trading scheme, a Liberal source said to Phil Coorey:

And then, of course, we have the member for Tangney’s real position. He says global warming has been exposed as a massive fraud which the public has been duped into believing. His ultimate solution is: ‘Why don’t we put a shade cloth into orbit?’ I believe that says it all.