Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the minister’s statement in the Senate yesterday:

Yes, we adopted a Kyoto target of 108 per cent which we are going to achieve.

Given that the government’s December 2006 Tracking to the Kyoto target report indicates Australia will miss its Kyoto target, on what basis did the minister make his statement? Doesn’t the Howard government’s failure to sign the Kyoto protocol and its failure to meet Australia’s target show that the Howard government is not capable of meeting the climate change challenge? Isn’t that why after 11 long years of the Howard government we are still waiting for action on climate change? Minister, isn’t the government still dominated by climate change sceptics, who are not capable of providing the solution Australia needs?

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

I am very happy to restate the government’s proud record in relation to responding seriously and sensibly, and against the background of our long experience in government, on this international issue of climate change. We do take the issue seriously, but we made a very sensible and wise decision not to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and it is well known why we did that: the world’s major emitters are not part of that protocol. The Labor Party seem to forget that Australia is responsible for some 1½ per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The world’s major emitters—the United States, China, India and Brazil, which account for, I think, some 60 per cent of the world’s emissions—are not part of that protocol. All that ratifying that protocol would do would guarantee the export of jobs from this country. You would guarantee that energy-intensive industries, which all of us have worked so hard to bring to this country to employ Australians and to create wealth for Australians, would simply migrate to those countries not part of the protocol and not bound by any of its restrictions—to countries where there are much worse environmental practices than in this country, resulting in probably greater emissions than if those industries operated in this country. There would be no net benefit to the environment whatsoever and probably a net deficit to the environment internationally, and at the cost of jobs and wealth in this country.

What we did, however, was agree to adopt the target set for Australia and restrict our emissions to 108 per cent at the start date. I am advised we are on target to meet that objective because of the substantial range of measures that we have adopted. It was the Australian coalition government that introduced the mandatory renewable energy target. For example, we were the ones who introduced the solar panel rebate, about which now the Labor Party have said: ‘Yes, we like that too. We’ll have some of that.’ They are proposing to keep our solar power rebate policy, which of course this government will also continue. As I said, we have committed some $2 billion to support emissions-reducing technologies. We are supporting the world’s biggest solar power plant—the solar tower in Victoria. We are conducting research into clean coal, which the Labor Party now support. As I said before, we have the task force on emissions trading. We are taking a whole range of steps to ensure that Australia does play its appropriate and responsible part in the way the globe is tackling climate change. But we will not do anything which will unduly threaten the jobs of Australians and we will not do anything to threaten the foundations of the Australian economy.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Minister, hasn’t Australia’s international reputation been tarnished by the Howard government’s failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol? How on earth can the Australian people expect the Howard government to address the challenges of climate change when so many members of it deny it is actually a problem? Isn’t it time that Australia got a government that can address the problems of today and tomorrow, not one that is stuck in the past?

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

Fortunately, Australia does have a government which is tackling the problems of today and tomorrow. What we fortunately do not have in government is an opposition which wants to take us back to the future with the most backward-looking industrial relations proposals anyone ever invented. What is Mr Rudd’s big idea? To go back to the 1960s approach to industrial relations, to go back to the 1980s approach to providing broadband for this country and to rehash WA Inc. and the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. We know about the party that is back to the future, and that is the Australian Labor Party.