Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

The government, of course, doesn't support the bill that is currently before the chamber. I want to come to PEP-11 in a moment but the coverage of the bill is much broader than PEP-11. It would apply to petroleum exploration leases right across eastern and southern Australia. It would have a profound effect on our $90 billion oil and gas sector. The proposition that his government would support a blanket ban on oil and gas exploration and development is completely utterly unacceptable to the government. I want to make a few comments about why then I want to come to the issue of PEP-11. I respect the fact that Senator Whish-Wilson not only had a number of other particular potential developments in mind in his own contribution today but also other matters that he's brought to the Senate in relation to some of these developments.

We don't support a one-out approach of making special measures in Australia of knocking over fossil fuel development or oil and gas projects in Australia and that's because we support the global framework. That's because the position of the Australian government is that we, like the previous government and future governments, are signed up to the Paris framework. That means that we have to take measures for our own domestic emissions. Other countries, other companies, are responsible for the emissions that are created through their consumption of Australian oil and gas and coal and other products. It's an attractive slogan to put to people who are legitimately deeply concerned about the impact of dangerous climate change on our environment, on our welfare, on our security, on our safety. Its impact is felt very differently around the world. It's felt most dramatically in the Pacific and South-East Asia where efforts are focused on managing the impacts of changing temperatures, changing patterns and rising sea levels.

I spent some time last year in the Mekong Delta, where the impact of ever-rising sea levels in the flat, low delta is having a profound effect on food security, rural poverty and agricultural production. You could not have two more different looking river systems than the Murray-Darling and the Mekong. But 30 years of deep agricultural research between Vietnam and Australian industry and Australian government agencies shows our history of dealing with soil salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin means that there are very important research collaborations assisting their response.

It is legitimate to argue that the scale of the global response is not sufficient to meet the challenge. If that's the case then that is an argument for more concerted global action. That is an argument for nations to comply with their obligations and argue for more—

An honourable senator: Leadership.

leadership, indeed, because that's been lacking for the last decade. You don't take one-off action that undermines the cause of collective global action. It's at best wrong-headed and, at worst, it distracts people into a cul-de-sac of action. A bit of free advice on the environmental approach here—and feel free to ignore it—what it means is that, if people are focused upon this idea that cancelling particular projects and undermining Australia's overall response and the level of community support across the community for cohesive, concerted government action and they think that's going to assist the cause of global emissions reduction, that is entirely wrong. It undermines community support. It's big in some suburbs, but it undermines community support for action that delivers reduced emissions, lower energy costs, investment in the technology of the future and, critically, global cooperation.