Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes. You would fill the stadium with people going along to see the singer. Perhaps even the fans of Jimmy Barnes were turned aside because of the workplace relations thing. I am a bit disappointed in the Labor Party. It was such a big issue today, so I thought their one afternoon of opposition business today would surely have been on workplace relations. Fortuitously—and fortunately for the rest of us in the Senate—they have picked the more serious topic of climate change, because nobody, most of all the workers in Australia, takes too seriously the ongoing dishonest campaign by the Labor Party and the few union bosses, who will suffer as a result of the Work Choices legislation.

I am disappointed in the arguments today from the Labor Party, because, as I understood it, the workplace relations bill was going to make the sky fall in. I felt absolutely certain that someone would have blamed climate change on the workplace relations bill, because all those dire warnings have been given for so very long. It is good to debate a serious subject which concerns, I think, everyone in the world. I really struggle to understand the approach of the Labor Party particularly. I struggle to understand the approach of the Democrats and I have never bothered to try and understand the approach of the Greens, because I know they are just in this for the few votes they can win from the Labor Party each election by taking a different approach or a left-wing approach. But it does surprise me that the Labor Party have adopted this approach.

Someone has to tell me; I cannot quite follow this. I think Senator Allison made the point that the United States emits 25 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions. I acknowledge that, Senator Allison. You said that for some reason the government does not seem to acknowledge it. We do. I have to say to Senator Allison: that is just the point about signing or not signing Kyoto. I will come back to that. But if the United States emits 25 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, what does China emit? I do not have those figures; I am sure they will be around the chamber. What does India emit? What does Europe emit—that great bastion of propriety when it comes to greenhouse emissions? Of course, they are pretty big emitters—not as big as they would be if they did not have all that nuclear power. It is because of the nuclear power in Britain and France in particular that Europe is not such a big emitter as they might otherwise be.

Australia emits less than one per cent of the world’s greenhouse emissions. So, if we signed up to Kyoto today, I would understand from the arguments of Senator Allison, the Greens and even the Labor Party that suddenly our farmers will not be in drought, just by Australia actually signing a bit of paper. Signing a bit of paper will not make one iota of difference to Australia’s farmers or changing climate in Australia. What will make a difference—and it will not make a difference for a few years, but it certainly requires urgent attention—is getting the big emitters involved. The big emitters in this particular instance are the United States, China and India. So having Australia sign or not sign a document that very few of the big emitters are involved in is just nonsensical. I have to get someone to try and explain to me the logic of their arguments. What Australia needs to do and what this government wants to do is engage with those big emitters—the USA, China, India and others—to try and bring them into some sort of meaningful arrangement that will stop greenhouse gas emissions and the change in climate.

We have had all the accusations, such as: because Australia has not signed a bit of paper, suddenly all the South Pacific countries will go underwater—it will be Australia’s fault because we have not signed a bit of paper. Where is the common sense and logic in all that? These island nations are in trouble because of the greenhouse gas emissions from the big emitters. What do you do about that? You do not have a country that emits less than one per cent sign a bit of paper; you try to get into the tent and into some meaningful arrangement with the people who are the big emitters, and that is Australia’s goal.

All that Australia would do if it signed this bit of paper is destroy, in a competitive way, its very lucrative coal industry. Again, the Labor Party speaks with a pretty forked tongue, I might say, when it comes to this particular argument, because, when they are around the cafe latte set in Sydney and Melbourne, where most of our Labor senators come from, with respect to them—