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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s previous answer, when he said that he challenged the opposition on what else could have been done over the last decade to reduce Australian greenhouse gas emissions. Why did the Prime Minister abandon the National Greenhouse Strategy agreed by a cabinet subcommittee in August 2000? Why did the Prime Minister reject a cabinet submission from the Treasurer in 2003 proposing the establishment of a national emissions trading scheme? Why did the Prime Minister shut down the emissions trading division of the Australian Greenhouse Office? Prime Minister, why did the government sit on its hands for the last 11 years and do nothing about the introduction of an emissions trading scheme—the critical missing market element in Australia—to bring greenhouse gas emissions down?

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

In typical fashion, the Leader of the Opposition has misquoted what I said, but let me move on from that. Let me return for a moment to the previous question the Leader of the Opposition asked, which was the basis of the question he has just asked, where he invited me to tell him and the House what impact the multiple measures I had outlined have had on greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. I indicated to him then that any measures that have been taken over the past few years are unlikely to show up in relation to greenhouse gas emissions for some years, just as measures taken now are unlikely to have an impact for some years into the future. I invited him, if he had some evidence to the contrary, to give it to me. Given the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has championed the Kyoto protocol and has criticised this government for not signing the Kyoto protocol, I think it is very interesting to have a look at the way in which countries that have ratified the protocol have performed in relation to the target.

Let us have a look at some of these countries. Canada was required to have a reduction of six per cent and the actual change in emissions between 1990 and 2004 has been 62.2 per cent—and the new Canadian government said when it came to office that that target was absolutely unachievable. Spain was required to reduce by eight per cent; it has gone over by 47.9 per cent. Ireland was required to reduce by eight per cent; it has gone over by 22.7 per cent. Japan was required to reduce by six per cent; it has gone over by 5.8 per cent. Portugal was given a target of 127 per cent and is 20 per cent over. Italy was given 93.5 per cent and is 20 per cent over. Norway was given 101 per cent and is 22 per cent over. Denmark was given 79 per cent and is 25 per cent over. And Austria was given 87 per cent and is 28 per cent over.

By contrast, this country is on track to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets that were set by Kyoto. All of the lectures, all of the sermons, all of the criticism falls away when you look at what has been achieved. This country is doing far better than many of those who ratified the protocol. This country is doing better than many of those who lecture about it. This country is doing a lot better than the Leader of the Opposition ever dares to give it credit for.