Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

with an approach which deals directly with emissions at source. That is what we have done over recent days. The context for this debate is very clear. Firstly, it is a real issue. I wrote about it in 1990 as a given fact and I have treated it as such ever since. But let us put this even more into context. Australia’s 1990 emissions were 550 million tonnes of CO or equivalent gases; Australia’s 2006 emissions were 560 million tonnes. That is a fact. The second fact is that Australia’s contribution to total global CO emissions is about 1.4 per cent; the United States is at almost 25 per cent; China is at almost 15 per cent, rising over time to 25 per cent; India is at five per cent and is also rising significantly; and the EU is at about 14 per cent. In that context, it is absolutely transparent that nothing will occur unless—precisely as the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources have said—we deal with the major emitters. To pretend that we do not need to do so, and to pretend that simply signing a sheet promising to do what we are doing in any event is going to make a difference, is a dishonesty and a fraud—and it is something which I say is a contempt of the Australian people.

So, against that background, it is important to remember, as well, that we have dealt with major problems before, whether it was the collapse through cholera and typhoid of much of London society 150 years ago—we dealt with that through dealing with technology straight-up—or acid rain and problems of the ozone hole. We have dealt with all those directly. Against that, what about the opposition’s wrong way? On the domestic side, what they are proposing is a demand management system, and this demand management is based precisely on a petrol tax and a pensioners’ heating tax. Those are the fundamental elements. Our friend will say, ‘We’re going to cap it and trade it,’ but what that means if we do it unilaterally—

See this speech in context