Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Minchin, representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware that those who have lodged submissions with the Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading in support of a national emissions trading scheme include BHP, Rio Tinto, Shell, NAB, Qantas, AGL, the Insurance Council of Australia and plantation and paper industries? Is the minister aware that the submissions from many major corporations now recognise that any global emissions trading scheme will only evolve from a collection of national and regional schemes? Isn’t business reflecting the wider community’s frustration with the Howard government’s failure to tackle climate change? When will the government stop its denial of climate change and accept the need for a national carbon trading scheme?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It comes as a great shock to me that, on the occasion of the visit of the British Labour government’s adviser on the economics of these matters, Sir Nicholas Stern, the Labor Party should ask a question about climate change! But can I respond to the question by noting that it is this government’s initiative in establishing a highly credentialed task force to examine emissions trading that prompts the question and that, indeed, these are submissions to that task force that we have invited from industry on the question of what sort of emissions trading scheme might be appropriate or on the shape of an emissions trading scheme in which Australia could participate. One of the issues, obviously, that that task force will have to consider in its report is whether you could establish, for example, a domestic or regional emissions trading scheme based around Australia, satisfactorily and effectively, that would have an abating effect on greenhouse gas emissions, or whether that simply would not work and you would have to develop a truly international scheme if you were to achieve net reductions in emissions.

One of the concerns the government has always had—and one of the reasons we were unwilling to ratify the Kyoto protocol—is that there can be absolutely no net gain either to Australia or to the international environment if all that domestic policy does is drive substantial greenhouse gas emitting industries offshore, to countries that are not part of any sort of international structure and, indeed, with much lower emissions trading or general environmental standards. You might well have a net increase in emissions but the loss of very valuable jobs and export income in this country. So it is a very serious issue. It is not a matter for grandstanding and playing to the audience. As a responsible national government—and I think Labor should understand this, having been in government and being a party that wishes to be in office—you do have to take account of the overall national interest and have an eye to what is achievable.

An emissions trading scheme is one way in which you could put a price on carbon and, therefore, hopefully, have some abatement effect on emissions. Another way is a carbon tax. The government has indicated its preference, if there is to be any move, for emissions trading over a tax, but there are many learned people who think a tax is a viable option. But we have always had concerns about the extent to which you can move unilaterally without doing great damage to the Australian economy and achieve nothing in terms of any international effort to contain greenhouse gas emissions.

So we look forward very much to the report of the task force to which Senator Evans referred. It will report back to the government by 31 May. We are delighted that industry has responded positively to it and is putting its ideas forward. We will constructively and sensibly consider those ideas and report to the Australian people our views on this matter once we have that report.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer, where he again outlined his opposition to Australia doing anything unilaterally in relation to tackling carbon emissions. Isn’t that the very concern that business is expressing? Isn’t that the very concern of Sir Nicholas Stern, that we need action now, and that the government continuing to sit on its hands, the delays in taking any real action, will only cost Australia greatly? Hasn’t the government’s response been merely to set up a committee? And hasn’t the government effectively been unable to lead on this vital question because senior ministers like Senator Minchin are still in denial about the reality of climate change? Aren’t you incapable of providing leadership on this issue because you do not accept the science?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is putting words in my mouth. All I did, in my answer to his question, was to point out that any responsible national government must take account of whether or not acting unilaterally will actually achieve anything positive without doing great damage to the Australian economy. I note his reference to Sir Nicholas Stern, who, as I understand it, does particularly emphasise the importance of international action, for the very reasons I outlined in my answer.

With the extraordinary growth in the Chinese economy, you could shut down the Australian economy tomorrow and eliminate all our greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic causes and they would be replaced in nine months by the growth in China. That is a demonstration of the very serious issue that is at hand here as to what is responsible and possible, on Australia’s part, to cost-effectively reduce emissions without reducing Australian standards of living for no point whatsoever. We would ask the Labor Party to adopt a much more balanced attitude on this issue.