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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, aren’t the key recommendations from the Stern review that countries should take action to support international agreements, such as the Kyoto protocol, which have targets for reducing greenhouse emissions and put a price on carbon through emissions trading? Prime Minister, will you now support Labor’s blueprint that I released in March 2006 to ratify the Kyoto protocol, introduce a national emissions trading system and significantly increase the mandatory renewable energy targets?

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

It is true that the Stern review, apart from analysing the climate change that is occurring and projecting the likely outcomes, recommends that there be concerted, combined and comprehensive international action to challenge this issue. That is a recommendation that the government wholeheartedly endorses. Let me simply say, however, that in pursuing that objective we will make certain that the natural advantages this country has been given by providence are not squandered. One of the great natural advantages this country has is that we are a major possessor, user and exporter of fossil fuels. It therefore follows that, if we are not careful in the implementation of our policies in relation to this issue, not only can we do great damage to our own economy but, in the process, we will not serve the interests of those who live in other countries. We do as a country have an obligation as part of the international community to play our role.

I might mention that, in pursuit of the greenhouse gas emission target set by Kyoto, this country is doing better than most industrialised countries. It is very interesting that some of the countries that presume to lecture Australia are in fact far less likely than Australia to meet their Kyoto targets. The reason why we have not signed, and will not sign, Kyoto in its present form is that it does not comprehensively embrace all of the world’s major emitters.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Kerr interjecting

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

Order! The member for Denison!

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

You cannot have an effective response to global warming unless you have all of the culprits in the net. As you know, Kyoto does not impose the obligations it would have imposed on Australia on countries like China and India. The United States is not a member of Kyoto and, if my quick mathematics is correct, if you add the United States, India and China together, you have virtually half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. How on earth can an agreement that does not embrace almost half of the world’s emitters be the answer? It plainly is not the answer, and that is why we have not signed it. And there is another reason why we have not signed—that is, if we signed it in its present form—

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Kerr interjecting

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

Order! The member for Denison is warned!

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

we would be assuming obligations that are not even imposed on countries like China and India. As Prime Minister, I am not going to take decisions that will put at risk the jobs and the investments associated with the natural advantages this country enjoys. Others may choose to do that, but while I am Prime Minister of this country I am not going to betray the natural advantages this country has. I am not going to betray those associated with the resource industry. What I am going to say to them is that the path ahead—

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms King interjecting

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

Order! The member for Ballarat!

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

is to develop alternatives to the use of fossil fuel—alternatives that involve everybody sharing the burden and not placing an unfair burden on the industries of Australia. There is nothing in the Stern report—and I have read the executive summary; I do not pretend to have read the 700 pages—that is contrary to what I am saying, because in the end you will not solve this problem until you get an effective international agreement. Kyoto was never an effective international agreement and that is why we did not sign it, but we are committed to working with other countries and we are very active in trying to achieve an agreement that does include everybody. The other thing I have to say is that the response to the problem is multifaceted. We clearly need to invest more in technologies to clean up coal, we clearly need to invest in renewables and we clearly need to look at the nuclear option.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms King interjecting

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

Order! The member for Ballarat is warned!

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

Let me conclude my answer by quoting from somebody else. When I read this at the beginning of the year, it struck me as eminent common sense, and I would like to share with the House these words, which I think really encapsulate the issue very well:

Those who hope to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and wave power need to come to terms with the reality that renewable energies, while they have an important and growing role to play, can’t provide affordable and continuous base load energy.

Abandoning traditional base load power in favour of renewables would result in an indefinite global depression, condemning hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people to starvation.

This contribution to the debate ends with the words:

Uranium is the other option for base load energy.

Those words are very similar to what I have been saying as a contribution to this debate over the past weeks. They neatly encapsulate the common sense. They are the words of somebody who cares about the working men and women of Australia. They were the words of none other than the member for Batman on 26 January 2006.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an excellent response, Prime Minister. My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on Australia’s international cooperation to address climate change?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I thank the honourable member for his question and, obviously, for his longstanding interest in the whole issue of climate change. What the Stern review is helping to focus the public mind on is the fact that the only solution to the climate change issue is going to be a comprehensive and global solution. That can be illustrated with a simple statistic. According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, ABARE, Australia produces about 1.6 per cent of global emissions and China, 15 per cent, but by 2050 Australia’s share will have dropped to 1.1 per cent and China’s will have increased to nearly 27 per cent.

Those statistics make it perfectly clear that the great challenge in addressing the climate change issue is to engage countries like China, India and also, by the way, Brazil to ensure that these major developing country emitters are part of the solution to the problem. It cannot be solved without engaging them. Of course, the Labor Party cries, ‘Kyoto, Kyoto, Kyoto.’ What does ABARE say about Kyoto? ABARE says that, without the Kyoto protocol, greenhouse emissions during the commitment period, 1990 to 2008-12, would have increased by 41 per cent, but if every single country which has targets under Kyoto and has ratified Kyoto achieves those targets—and, as the Prime Minister has said, many of them are way over those targets—then those emissions would not grow by 41 per cent but by 40 per cent.

For the Labor Party to go out and try to convince the Australian public that Kyoto is an answer to the climate change issue is completely misleading. It is more than misleading; it is false. What this government is doing is working on making sure that we engage the major emitters. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which had its inaugural meeting in Sydney in January, includes China, India, the United States of America, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Australia. This is about 50 per cent of the global GDP and it is about 50 per cent of global emissions, and most of these countries—there are a couple of exceptions there—are not making any commitment under Kyoto.

This is an enormously important development. We will have more to say about it as the week wears on. The fact that we will have more to say about it I know will interest the Labor Party. The Labor Party has bagged this initiative from the word go. The honest truth of this is that the Labor Party’s preferred option is Kyoto, which excludes China, India and Brazil—and the United States of course—from making any commitments. Our preferred option—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Crean interjecting

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

Order! The member for Hotham is warned!

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, not wishing to disparage anything else, our preferred option is the Asia-Pacific partnership—AP6. Finally, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has a meeting next week in Nairobi. At that meeting there will be a discussion about how we are going to address, as an international community, the second commitment period. This is what Sir Nicholas Stern and others are interested in. Australia will be fully engaged in that meeting, but we will be engaged on the basis that we have always been engaged—that is, that we get the major emitters to make a contribution and a commitment. That is the basis on which we are engaged, not on some phoney political stunt which misleads people on solving the problem of climate change. The Labor Party know their policy is a policy of stunts, not of substance.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Swan interjecting

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

Order! The member for Lilley!

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 his statement in answer to the last question that the Kyoto protocol was ‘never an effective international agreement’. Prime Minister, do you recollect the statement of your then environment minister, former Senator Hill, when he said on 30 March 2000:

There are those who foolishly believe that Australia has something to win by derailing the Kyoto protocol. As an expression of our commitment to the Kyoto outcome, the Howard Government ensured that Australia was among the first nations to sign the Protocol.

Prime Minister, do you recollect the statement of your then Minister for Resources and Energy, Warwick Parer:

The Kyoto Protocol provides a sound basis for protecting Australia’s export competitiveness and employment prospects in our minerals processing and energy export industries ...

I also ask you, Prime Minister, whether you remember this quote from your former Deputy Prime Minister—the Deputy Prime Minister when he made it:

... the Kyoto agreement permitting Australia an 8% increase in emissions of 6 greenhouse gases by 2012 over 1990 levels will preserve the interests of farmers, miners, manufacturing industry and the economy in general.

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.

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

Finally, Prime Minister, do you recollect your own statement: ‘The Kyoto protocol is a win for the environment and a win for Australian jobs’?

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

The leader will come to his question or resume his seat.

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

Apart from your receipt of advice from the President of the United States, George Bush, what has changed since then?

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

The answer is that I do broadly remember those statements. It does not in any way alter the substance of this debate. The substance of this debate is whether in fact ratifying the Kyoto protocol—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

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

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!

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

Sure, Australia signed the original Kyoto protocol, but we never ratified it. The reason we never ratified it is that—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn’t like the cover?

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

The member for Lilley is warned! I remind members that the Leader of the Opposition has asked a serious question. The Prime Minister has been called and the Prime Minister will be heard.

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

There are two reasons why, above others, the government did not ratify the Kyoto protocol and why the inane mantra of the Labor Party at the present time is that you solve everything by ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Firstly, as the foreign minister pointed out, without Kyoto—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

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

Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!

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

there would have been an increase of 41 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions and even if everybody met their target under Kyoto—which, manifestly and in most cases, unlike Australia, they are not going to—the greenhouse gas emissions would have risen by 40 per cent. So we would have purchased for the entirety of Kyoto but one per cent. The other reason is the reason that I gave in the answer to my first question, and that is that Kyoto in its present form—and there is no likelihood of it changing—does not obligate countries like India and China and does not include the United States. If you add those three countries together, you have approximately half of all of the greenhouse gas emissions.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bevis interjecting

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

The member for Brisbane is warned!

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

If we are interested in reducing climate change and if we are interested in the future and the substance of a policy response to the challenge the world now confronts, we need to find a basis for an international agreement—a new agreement, a new Kyoto, whatever you want to call it—which binds everybody. That is something that has to include China, has to include India and it obviously must include the United States, which is the world’s major polluter.

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Irwin interjecting

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

The member for Fowler is warned!

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

The government has made it clear repeatedly and I make it clear again today that we will be part of an international emissions trading system provided that it is a trading system that involves all the nations of the world.

Kelly Hoare (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Hoare interjecting

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

Order! The member for Charlton will remove herself under standing order 94(a).

The member for Charlton then left the chamber.

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

Let me repeat that the government has for some time—and I repeat it again today—been of the view that Australia will fully participate in discussions to achieve an international agreement that embraces all of the countries of the world and most particularly the world’s major emitters. If that were to occur, we would be willing to be part of an international emissions trading system.

If anybody imagines for a moment that that is a position at which we have arrived in the wake of the Stern review, let me refer to the document that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition hoped that I would not throw around. It happens to be a document entitled Securing Australia’s energy future and it was published some two years ago. On page 149, we made it perfectly clear in that document that we were open to participation in an international emissions trading system and that we would not, however, be willing to introduce a trading scheme in the absence of an effective global response. Our position for some years has been to the effect that I have outlined. If you can get all of the world’s major emitters then we can be part of an emissions trading scheme but, until we do, it would betray the interests of, amongst others, the working men and women of Australia if this country were to embrace the policies of the Australian Labor Party.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Plibersek interjecting

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

The member for Sydney!

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Would the minister update the House on government initiatives to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Gillard interjecting

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

I remind the member for Lalor that she has been warned!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

The member for Sturt is warned too!

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Macquarie for his question and his very strong support of the government’s policy in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. When it comes to the challenge of lowering greenhouse gas emissions—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you think if you say it enough someone will believe it?

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

The member for Sydney is warned!

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

this government believes in actions, not words.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I am not going to try and talk over them.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the minister’s shadow, I think he should be given a fair hearing. I draw your attention to the government whip who is conducting a ballot during question time. I refer to your previous ruling that the opposition whip was not to move around during question time. I ask you to apply the same ruling to the government whip so as to ensure that the minister gets a fair hearing.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Members are holding up their own question time. The member for Batman raises a valid point of order and, included in that, he made it clear that, as all members are well aware, when a minister is asked a serious question he deserves the right to be heard.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, when it comes to the challenge of greenhouse gas emissions and lowering greenhouse gas emissions, this government believes in actions.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting

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

Order! The member for Hunter will remove himself from the House under standing order 94(a).

The member for Hunter then left the chamber.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actions like the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which has seen projects already announced that will lower greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tonnes per annum; the $100 million renewable energy development initiative, which has already seen some 16 renewable energy projects awarded funding across the country; and of course the $75 million Solar Cities program, which is seeing groundbreaking solar energy technology trialled throughout Australia, including in Adelaide and Townsville. These programs are part of a $2 billion strategy laid out by this government. It is a strategy to lower greenhouse gas emissions which is unashamedly focused on practical technological measures which deliver real greenhouse gas reductions. This approach was emphasised heavily in today’s Stern report. According to the report:

Effective action on the scale required to tackle climate change requires a widespread shift to new or improved technology in key sectors ...

The report goes on:

... closer collaboration between government and industry will further stimulate the development of a broad portfolio of low carbon technologies and reduce costs.

The report goes on to say:

Policy should be aimed at bringing a portfolio of low-emission technology options to commercial viability

That is precisely what this government is doing, and those opposite are not prepared to accept the hard work of policy to put these initiatives in place. They chant ‘Kyoto’ and yet Stern says there is no single-bullet solution to this complex global issue. Concerted international action is needed, yet Labor continues to just say one thing: Kyoto.

Kyoto is not a global trading system and it is not successful in lowering the greenhouse gas emissions of most countries. It binds less than half of the world to emissions reduction, and most of those are going to miss their targets. Over the life of the treaty, global emissions will grow by some 40 per cent. It shows once again that taxes, treaties and targets do not deliver greenhouse gas savings; technology does—and technology is exactly what this government is delivering.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister and follows the answer from the industry minister to the previous question. Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that every single announcement made under the low emissions technology fund has depended upon market based renewable energy targets established by state governments, a policy approach that you have explicitly rejected? Isn’t it the case that Solar Systems themselves have said that their solar plant in Mallee, Victoria is only viable because of the Victorian renewable energy target? Is it not the case, Prime Minister, that the Stern report identifies the need for market based mechanisms in order to drive the application and commercialisation of new technology?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Downer interjecting

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

Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs is warned!

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

The answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part of the question is that the fundamental recommendation, observation, conclusion—call it what you will—of Stern is that you need a comprehensive international agreement and then you can have an emissions-trading system. That has been our position—

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Macfarlane said he didn’t like treaties!

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

Order! The member for Melbourne is warned!

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

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

That has been our position. I know the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not like me brandishing this document—and I will handle it with care!—but if you care to have a look at it you will find that, way back a couple of years ago, when we laid down the low emissions technology fund, we explicitly allowed for the day when you would have international agreement on an emissions-trading system. But it will not work unless everybody is in.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you show some leadership!

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

Order! The member for Sydney will remove herself from the House under standing order 94(a).

The member for Sydney then left the chamber.

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

An international emissions-trading system will not work unless you have everybody in.

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

Mr Albanese interjecting

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

It will not work unless you have everybody in. According to that definition, to which the member for Grayndler assented, Kyoto is not an international emissions-trading system, because everybody is not in Kyoto. In particular, the countries responsible for half the world’s emissions are not part of Kyoto.

I was interested in the reaction of those who sit opposite when I said we needed a new Kyoto. Let me say that again: we do need a new Kyoto, because the old Kyoto has failed. The old Kyoto has been a failure because the old Kyoto did not have India and it did not have China. It had India and China as sort of nominal members, but they were—what do you call it in the jargon?—annex 2 countries. Or was it annex 1? In other words, they were signatories but they were not obligated. Therein lay, you might say, the investment death trap for Australia. If we had signed up to the failed Kyoto, what would have happened was that we would have assumed obligations. The member for Batman knows this, because the member for Batman still cares about the working men and women of Australia and he does not want their job opportunities destroyed. That is why we did not sign the old Kyoto.

We would be part of a new Kyoto if the new Kyoto embraced all of the countries of the world, put us all on a proper footing and, very particularly, included all of the world’s great emitters. If that were to happen, you could seriously talk about an emissions trading system; but, until you get that, it is manifestly against the interests of this nation to sign up to the current Kyoto because, if there is no change, all that will do is result in the export of jobs from this nation to other countries, where the obligations imposed are less than the obligations imposed on Australia.

If we are to have a sensible debate about this issue—and I assume that that is what those who sit opposite want—then we must acknowledge that the goal is to get a framework where everybody is involved in an international emissions trading system. We are prepared to be part of the international negotiations needed to bring that about, but our precondition is that everybody is in. We are not signing something that obligates Australia and does not obligate other countries, particularly given the natural advantage that providence has given us in relation to fossil fuels. What a fool this country would be to itself, having been given this enormous natural advantage, if we were to take a disproportionate share and burden and, in effect, say to the world, ‘We know that if we assume these obligations they will hobble our efficient export industries and they will not affect yours.’ I am not going to do that and nor is any member of this government. But what we are going to do is very enthusiastically be part of an endeavour to find, if you like, a new Kyoto that embraces everybody and has an effective international emissions trading system. If everybody is in that, we can actually make a bit of progress.

Jackie Kelly (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister update the House on the research being undertaken by the CSIRO into climate change and the technologies to deal with it? What is the government’s response to this?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and her interest in this matter. Australia accounts for about 1½ per cent of global emissions, yet we have the potential to have a significant impact on reducing global emissions through the development of innovative technologies that can be adapted globally. Our premier scientific and research organisation, the CSIRO, already has a strong track record of influencing international innovation. The Australian government has increased base funding for the CSIRO by some 45 per cent over the last 10 years to a record high of over $600 million this year. The CSIRO now ranks in the top one per cent of scientific institutions around the world in 13 of 22 research fields, including environment and ecology.

In 2006-07 alone, the CSIRO is investing around $60 million on climate change research. This year, $30 million will be spent on energy research through one of our flagship research programs, Energy Transformed. That is targeting a wide range of technologies, including solar, wind, clean coal and hydrogen. The flagship program is also working on variable energy from wind and solar, and it has developed the Ultra battery, which is a long-life super battery. Some of the major breakthroughs by the CSIRO to date include using solar energy to transform natural gas to hydrogen, which could be used for future energy needs, and developing the world’s most efficient method of extracting hydrogen from water.

The Australian government supports the CSIRO in these efforts. In fact, this year we funded the CSIRO’s $5.3 million National Solar Energy Centre, which is using solar energy to convert fossil fuels to gas. Members will be interested to know that CSIRO’s manufacturing and infrastructure technology division is at the forefront of fuel cell research. This is an environmentally friendly technology that converts fossil fuel or hydrogen to electricity. I think members should also note that the CSIRO’s expenditure on renewable energy has increased by almost 400 per cent since 2003 to over $15 million in 2006-07.

But, of course, the Leader of the Opposition has the answer. He has now pledged to save the planet. He is going to solve the problem of climate change single-handedly. At his doorstop this morning, he said:

I am absolutely fair dinkum about dealing with the consequences of climate change. When we’re elected to office, we will fix this.

I would be very interested to know how the Leader of the Opposition intends to reduce emissions in China or India. While this government is supporting groundbreaking research into climate change, we are ensuring our economy remains strong, we are ensuring that there are low levels of unemployment and we are also working sensibly to reduce emissions.