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

The form of that campaign has not been settled. No approval has been given for the distribution of that campaign. Everything that I have told the parliament in relation to that is absolutely true and does not represent the sort of behaviour alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition has come into this place feeling very much the cock of the walk. He feels full of himself. He feels very much on top of everything. He thinks everything is going swimmingly his way. He is entitled to behave like that and I understand why he might behave like that, but let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that there is a long way to go before a decision is made by his master and mine—that is, the Australian people. There is a long way to go before the Australian people make a decision about who is better able to handle the most vital economic decision to be taken in this country’s experience over the next 10 years. The Leader of the Opposition spent most of his speech talking about the politics and the policies of climate change. Let me say to all members of this House that I am not a climate change sceptic; I am a climate change realist. I am somebody who believes that there is mounting evidence that human behaviour is contributing to the growth of greenhouse gas emissions not only in Australia but all around the world. But I am also somebody who believes that if this country gets this decision wrong, we will pay a very heavy price. We will hurt our economy and we will destroy the jobs of Australians, particularly in the coal industry. If we take the advice of Europeans, if we take the advice of foreigners and not of experts here in Australia, we are bound to get this decision wrong.

My charge against the Labor Party in relation to this issue is that they have been driven by extreme ideology and not by common sense. Why do I make that charge and what is the basis of that charge? I make that charge because, amongst other things, the Labor Party have rejected the cleanest and greenest alternative to the current use of fossil fuel available in the Australian community—that is, nuclear power. Only somebody driven by ideology could close their mind to the possibility that nuclear power might be part of the solution. Only somebody who is driven by ideology rather than economic rationality and economic common sense could close their mind to the fact that 80 per cent of France’s electricity is generated by nuclear power, that 27 per cent of California’s electricity is generated by nuclear power, and that nuclear power is staging a comeback in many other parts of the world. In fact, generation for nuclear power stations is cleaner and safer than for coal-fired power stations. They are cleaner and safer than gas-fired power stations. Only an ideologue, therefore, could turn their mind against at least considering nuclear power as being part of the solution.

Worse than that, only somebody who is economically irresponsible could take a decision to commit this country to achieving a greenhouse gas reduction target without knowing the economic consequences of meeting that target. That is what the Australian Labor Party has done. The Australian Labor Party has said, ‘We are committed to a reduction of 60 per cent in our greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050,’ without knowing what the economic implications of that are. To use the basic language of the Australian community, that is putting the cart before the horse. That is making a decision without knowing the full implications of it. That is being recklessly indifferent to the economic future of this country. That is ignoring the costs that that might represent to the coal-miners of Australia. It is ignoring the costs that it might represent to the transport industry of this country.

By contrast, the approach taken by this government has been to find out the consequences of action before committing ourselves to it. That is why, not last week, not last month but in December of last year, I committed this government, in cooperation with Australian industry, to putting together an examination of the shape and form of an emissions trading system suitable for Australia. This week, the government will receive the report. That report will be a joint effort of the five most senior bureaucrats in the federal government and five representatives of the business community, including the resource sector of the Australian economy. This will be the most detailed, economically sustainable and intellectually consistent examination of the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, emissions tradings and related issues concerning climate change that has ever been put together in Australia.

This will be an Australian report for Australian conditions to preserve the strength of the Australian economy and make sure that we protect Australian jobs. It will not be a grab bag of proposals taken holus-bolus from a report written by an Englishman for European conditions and designed to promote the political objectives of the British government. That is what the Stern report is all about. Stern is not the biblical scholar of climate change that is posited by those who sit opposite. Stern has written from the perspective of an Englishman, from the European circumstance and from the European point of view. He does not have in mind the unique circumstances of Australia.

Amongst other things, Stern has suggested—and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to listen to this very carefully—that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2020. In other words, Stern says that in 13 years we have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent from current levels. Does the Leader of the Opposition have any idea what that means for the Australian economy? Does the Leader of the Opposition have any idea of the impact that would have on electricity prices? Does the Leader of the Opposition have any idea of the impact that would have on jobs in the resource industry? Does he have any idea of the impact that would have on overall economic growth in the Australian community? If he did have that idea then I do not think he would have so enthusiastically embraced the recommendations of Sir Nicholas Stern’s report.

What we want in relation to climate change is a measured, balanced response. We need to address the growth in greenhouse gas emissions but we need to do it in a way that matches the particular characteristics of the Australian economy, recognises the resource base of the Australian economy and, above all, do it in a way that maintains the ongoing strength of the Australian economy.

I finish with this proposition: if greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and associated matters represent a challenge to make the most important economic decisions this country will take in a decade, it is imperative that those who have demonstrated a capacity to make difficult economic decisions remain in charge of the taking of those important decisions.

See this speech in context