Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen reports of the views of a former US Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration regarding Kyoto and climate change? How do these views relate to those of the Australian government, and would the Prime Minister outline the practical steps the government is taking to support effective global efforts on climate change?

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

I thank the member for Boothby for his question. My attention has been drawn to an article in yesterday’s Financial Times written by Mr Larry Summers, a former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration and somebody whom I could rightly describe as both a rolled-gold Democrat and a true fiscal conservative. Larry Summers is certainly entitled to that description. He begins his article by noting:

If global warming is the ultimate inconvenient truth, the most important inconvenient truth about global warming policy … is what happens in the developing world.

This highlights a point that Australia has been making regularly, both domestically and internationally. Developing countries will account for 75 per cent of the increase in global CO emissions between 2004 and 2030. Mr Summers goes on to argue that the Kyoto approach—and I quote directly from what he said:

… could prove to be like the League of Nations approach to preserving peace: idealistic and visionary yet impractical, ultimately ineffective and perhaps even counterproductive because of the valuable political capital it consumes.

Another esteemed columnist for the same newspaper, Martin Wolf, has previously noted:

Kyoto is a gesture, not a policy.

Both Larry Summers, who could loosely be described as being on the progressive side of politics, to use the American nomenclature, and Martin Wolf, who could be described as being a little closer to the neoconservative side of politics, once again using the American nomenclature, have reached the conclusion that Kyoto, which is the centrepiece of the opposition’s policy on global warming, is not the solution.

What this article by Larry Summers calls for is practical steps—and that of course echoes the practical steps of the AP6 initiative; Australia’s clean coal partnership with China; our global forests initiative, engaging the developing world on deforestation, which accounts for 20 per cent of global emissions; and finally the practical steps which Australia is taking to engage all of the APEC countries in the climate change issue at the meeting of APEC in September this year. That has been the character and tone of discussions I have had recently on this issue with both President Bush and the Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. In his speech last week, the Japanese Prime Minister had this to say:

We must create a new framework which moves beyond the Kyoto protocol, in which the entire world will participate in emissions reduction. It is indispensable to establish a new framework in which both industrialised and developing countries address this issue together.

What I think we are seeing with these remarks and the attitude of other countries outside Europe is a new pragmatic way forward on climate change—one that understands the very deep flaws in the Kyoto protocol, one that recognises that the Eurocentric system of targets will not deliver the desired outcome and one that looks towards a new climate change framework that is more comprehensive and flexible.

I think this country has a dual responsibility on climate change. We must play our part in reducing emissions over time and contribute to the global solution, and we have to take practical steps to position our own economy for a lower-emissions future. On the latter, as the House knows, I will be receiving tomorrow the report of the Emissions Trading Taskforce, which I commissioned late last year. If we do move towards an emissions trading system, that will of necessity involve a long-term target of some kind. But it must be a target of which we know the consequences. It should not, in the words of Michael Chaney, the President of the Business Council of Australia, embrace a target plucked out of the air. In the words of Larry Summers, we need a global framework that goes beyond Kyoto—and Larry Summers comes to this debate with absolutely impeccable credentials as a former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration and somebody who is very much a rolled-gold Democrat and a true fiscal conservative.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister and it refers to his answer to the previous question on Kyoto. Is the Prime Minister aware that 173 countries have now ratified the Kyoto protocol, including China, India, Korea and Japan? Is the Prime Minister also aware that only three countries that signed the Kyoto protocol did not proceed to ratify it, namely Australia, the United States of America and Kazakhstan? Prime Minister, isn’t it a fact that if the USA ratified Kyoto today Australia would ratify it tomorrow—or would Australia also wait for Kazakhstan to ratify it first?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister has been called to answer the questions. He will be heard.

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

The answer to the first question is yes, it is true that that number of countries have ratified it. The answer to the second question is that Australia is one of a small number of countries that haven’t, and the reason we haven’t ratified—

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

It is not a question of how many countries that you accompany in a position; it is whether the position is in our national interests. The Leader of the Opposition quotes China as having ratified the protocol. It is easy for a country like China to ratify the protocol because China does not assume the obligations under the protocol that a country such as Australia would. If we had ratified the protocol, we would have been assuming obligations that would have been damaging to our economy; costly to jobs, especially in the resources industry; and not in Australia’s long-term interests. The Leader of the Opposition should be reminded that decisions in relation to these matters are not determined by the number of countries that share your view but by whether you believe the position you have taken is in your country’s interests. It was plainly not in the interests of Australia to ratify the protocol and that is why the government took that decision.