John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I am aware of the views expressed by Sir Nicholas Stern. Some of the views that he has expressed I agree with, some I have reservations about and some, I believe, if implemented, literally would do great damage to the Australian economy. When it comes to the decisions of the government, uppermost in our mind will be the national interest, not the views of any one individual, however eminent he may be regarded by some. The truth is that there is no one single solution to the global climate change challenge but, quite plainly, market mechanisms, including emissions trading, will be integral to any long-term global solution on climate change.

In the Sydney Morning Herald this morning he is reported as advocating—and I am not sure whether Sir Nicholas has been correctly quoted—‘Greenhouse gas emissions should be cut by up to 30 per cent by 2020.’ I would be interested to know whether the Australian Labor Party supports that goal. The Leader of the Opposition has asked me whether I would join the Labor Party in committing to that goal. I am not going to join the Australian Labor Party in destroying the jobs of Australian coalminers, I am not going to join the Labor Party in committing to targets which will do disproportionate damage to the Australian economy and I am not going to commit this government, or this country, to targets that impose an unfair or disproportionate burden on this country in the contribution it makes to responding to the challenge of climate change.

I note, incidentally, that Sir Nicholas Stern has also had something to say about clean coal technology, and that is an area where our views and the views of Sir Nicholas are very similar. I also note that he is a supporter and not an opponent of nuclear power. That of course is an area where we would agree and which represents a point of departure.

Let me say in conclusion that I am interested in his views. They make a valuable contribution to the debate, but they are the views of another expert. They should be treated with respect, but they should not be treated as holy writ.

See this speech in context