Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the report by respected economist Sir Nicholas Stern on the severe economic impact of climate change. Does the Prime Minister stand by his industry minister’s statement to the Sunday program on 20 August 2006 that he—that is, the industry minister—is ‘sceptical of the link between greenhouse emissions and climate change’?

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

The position of the government in relation to this is that of course climate change is occurring.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

Of course it is occurring. Self-evidently, climate change is occurring. I await with interest the full report of Sir Nicholas Stern, but from preliminary reports—and also analysis of those preliminary reports by the ever-vigilant member for Lilley—we know a number of things. We know first and foremost that you need to have a variety of responses to climate change. I would imagine that, if you need a variety of responses, one of the responses has to include a sensible examination of the nuclear power alternative.

Equally, Sir Nicholas, I understand—and this is self-evident—says that you cannot have a solution that does not involve in an effective way all of the international polluters. And I noticed that this was picked up. I impose a harsh discipline on myself of a morning, but one of the things I did this morning was to listen to the member for Lilley. Having said that, I have to make my peace with my colleague the Treasurer. I listened very carefully to the member for Lilley and he had a remarkable statement to make. He said it is very important for everybody to be part of the solution—countries like China and India had to be part of the solution—and, therefore, he was very disappointed that Australia had not ratified the Kyoto protocol. What he did not go on to acknowledge was that China and India, although being part of Kyoto, do not carry the same burden under Kyoto that Australia carries. That is the reason why, until that changes, this country will not join Kyoto, because, unless you have everybody in, you are not going to have a solution to the problem. I am not going to sign up to something that imposes burdens on my country that are not imposed on our competitors. That is the reason. Of course if you could reach an agreement that had the involvement of China, the involvement of the United States and the involvement of India, you would begin to find the basis of a worldwide approach to this problem, but, until you get all of them involved, you are not going to find a solution to this problem.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question asked if he stood by the industry minister’s scepticism on emissions trading and climate change.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. He has raised a point of order under the standing order on relevance, and I will rule on his point of order. The Prime Minister is clearly answering the question. I call the Prime Minister.

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

I was asked about a number of things, including Sir Nicholas Stern. I am just telling the member for Lilley that he is right, Sir Nicholas is right and everybody is right if they say the answer to this issue is to have all the polluters involved—and that is the reason why we have held back from Kyoto. And, unlike most of the European countries, we are going to either meet or go very near to meeting our Kyoto target. I have not only read the reports of the Nicholas Stern review; I have also read an article in the Guardianit is quite a strain for me to read the Guardian, but I have nonetheless done it—and what that article indicates is that most of the sermonisers and the lecturers on this issue, namely many of the European countries, are falling a long way short of their Kyoto targets. Despite being in many cases 50 per cent short of their targets, they are the people who are running around the world giving us a lecture. Australia will meet or go very close to meeting her target, and we will continue to hold out for an international agreement that includes everybody, because that is the only fair basis on which Australia can be included.