Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Will the minister inform the Senate how the Howard government plans to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions through an emissions-trading scheme while at the same time protecting working Australians and their families from economic disaster? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bernardi for his question and note his strong interest in ensuring a rational and balanced response to emissions reductions. The issue of climate change is one that this government has been working on for quite some time. As far back as 1998 we created a world first with our Australian Greenhouse Office. Another part of this long-term and sustained approach has been our consideration of a national carbon dioxide emissions trading system. We are serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions but not at the cost of crippling our economy and creating another Great Depression, or a ‘Garrett Depression’.

Last year the Prime Minister set up an emissions trading task force to examine the possibility of establishing such a scheme. Recently the task force released its report and, based on this, the government has determined to proceed with a domestic emissions trading scheme, grounded in sound economics, beginning no later than 2012. The government also accepts the conclusion that we should, when the appropriate modelling has been done, set a long-term aspirational goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and determine a least-cost pathway to help us get there. In setting up a carbon-trading system, a careful balance needs to be struck between environmental and economic values. I quote from the task force:

… ambition needs to be tempered with caution. In the period before there is international agreement, an Australian scheme should not prejudice the competitiveness of our trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries. Australian business should not be lost to overseas competitors with no reduction in global emissions.

It is unfortunate that those on the other side do not accept that wise counsel. Such is their fervour to be seen as acting on this issue, they are prepared to put aside the impact of their policies on Australian families. The fanatical Australian Greens would have us cut CO₂ emissions to virtually zero, and their plan to do it seems to consist entirely of closing down Australia’s job-rich coal industry. And the Labor Party are not much better. By promising a rock-star target—or should that be a ‘rock-solid’ target?—of a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, Labor are promising to destroy the economy. The most bizarre thing is they made this pledge before their own report on appropriate targets was handed down.

Some time ago Mr Hawke—and the aspiration was right—made the promise that no child should live in poverty by the year 1990. We now have a variation on this theme courtesy of Mr Rudd, because if his scheme gets introduced he will be able to ensure that every child will live in poverty by the year 2050. That is the economic irresponsibility of the current leadership of the Australian Labor Party. Whilst Mr Hawke’s aspiration was good, it was unfortunately not achieved. But this sort of aspiration by Mr Rudd is going to commit Australian families and their children to an economic standard that they should not be committed to. In addressing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, an important issue that needs to be taken into account is sound economic management. If we get this wrong for our economy, we get it wrong for every single Australian and for every single Australian family. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The minister commented that the Howard government has been at the forefront of greenhouse research on emissions since 1998. I ask the minister: what are the further implications for the economy of the Johnny-come-lately politics that have been preached by the opposition?

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not believe that supplementary question is in order.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the past rulings that you have made, if there are aspects of the question that are out of order, so be it, but clearly the range of issues canvassed—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your advice, Senator, but Senator Bernardi was directly asking about Labor Party policy.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. He was not—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He was. Resume your seat.