Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

My understanding is that the government does not oppose this motion. I have just listened to the Leader of the Nationals, who is the mover of the motion, arguing in favour of it. Being the mover of the motion he, obviously, would be expected to do that. But it seems to me, from listening to his contribution, that most of what he is asking of the government is already being done by the government, with the exception of perhaps signing certain international agreements that are currently being drawn up by other countries.

The motion is effectively saying this: the European Union has included within its emissions trading scheme a provision which forces international civil aviation carriers to be part of its emissions trading scheme. The motion also points out that there has been considerable opposition, by countries outside of the EU, to this proposition. My understanding is that the decision of the European Union dates back to October 2008 and at the time it was estimated to add between one and two euros to each passenger's flight. The Leader of the Nationals quite rightly points out that Qantas and Virgin in Australia have already factored in that additional cost in the order of $3.50 and $3 respectively. It is nothing new.

In recent times there has been considerable opposition by countries around the world to the inclusion of the aviation industry in the EU ETS. Australia too has made its opposition to this very clear. The member for Wide Bay says, 'What is Australia doing in respect to its opposition to this proposition?' The Australian government has for some time been in discussions with the EU on this very issue and has been doing it through a number of multinational forums. The ministers of the Australian government have met with EU counterparts and I understand that only recently the Australian government made its position very clear to the EU climate commissioner.

This is a matter that would be better resolved through negotiation than threats. The member for Wide Bay quite rightly referred to the Chinese response—they cancelled an aircraft order from Europe as a result. That is not the way our government believes matters should be negotiated. The different actions those countries have taken are interesting. Certainly, they are drawing up agreements or policy statements where they will oppose the introduction of the aircraft industry to the EU ETS, but they have not changed it. Taking a stance and protesting has not made a scrap of difference. It is our view that if you want to make a difference, go about it in a formal way.

It is also interesting that only last year the European Court of Justice rejected a legal complaint against the inclusion of the aviation industry into the EU ETS by American Airlines and other airline associations. They rejected it because it has obviously been very clearly and carefully drafted into their legislation, so going to the WTO is not necessarily going to be successful either. The success of this government seeking to have the decision of the European Union reversed or changed will come about through sensible dialogue between the EU and other countries. That is exactly the course that this government has taken, as it does in all international disputes.

The first thing we owe the countries we deal with is to sit down with them and go through the provisions of the issues that are in dispute and see how they can be best overcome. For the EU to have imposed ETS provisions on its aviation industry means it is something the EU believes in. It would be no different if this country made provisions that other countries differed with. If they do differ with them, talk to our government about it.

See this speech in context