Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak a little further in relation to the amendment that is being moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The point that I made, very strongly, about the United States of America was reinforced in a very interesting article that I read today in the Age. It was by an academic who is very highly regarded, and I suspect very highly regarded by members opposite. He is a person of very considerable stature—this is Hugh White. He writes:

As the government's carbon tax finally goes to a vote in Parliament this week, remember two tough truths. First, nothing Australia does by itself will materially affect carbon emissions or the trajectory of the world's weather. Only concerted global action will make any difference.

We are being told that the change you might be able to make to the weather will be affected by the decisions that we in fact make here. We have, I think it has been said, one per cent of emissions, and we will make no impact on what is going to happen to the rest of the world. That is the point that Hugh White is making. It is the point I think that is well understood. He goes on and says:

Second, the chances of concerted global action are low and trending lower. Two years after the collapse at Copenhagen, momentum for a global plan is stalled. As the global economy teeters, this year's Durban follow-up meeting is expected to mark time.

This is not a matter on which we need to act now and on which delay is going to hurt us. That is simply the point that somebody as well respected as Hugh White is making. He goes on to say:

The heart of the problem is the world's most complex, important and dangerous relationship - the edgy mix of implacable rivalry and mutual dependence between the US and China.

They are not just the world's two biggest economies, and the world's two biggest carbon emitters. They are also the world's most powerful diplomatic players. If they can agree together on a carbon emissions plan, they can make it happen. If they cannot agree, nothing will happen. It is as simple as that.

I have not seen an exposition as clear.

This is something that colleagues opposite have fixed their flag to, but the fact is that implementation of this legislation, without changing global emissions, will have a very, very significant impact on the cost of doing business in Australia, particularly for those who have to be competitive in world trade markets. You may talk about the strength of the Australian economy, but implementing this legislation will leave us considerably worse off. That is the bottom line.

I made a speech quite early in the second reading debate on this matter. I made it clear that my speech was not a commentary on the science. If there were a global response I would want Australia to be part of it. But I cannot see why Australia should be out there largely in isolation. I have heard the arguments about what is said to be happening in the rest of the world. I cannot see it. I have participated in conferences abroad and discussed these issues with others who would have some knowledge of what is happening in their situations. Countries are backing off, because they cannot afford in this matter to go it alone in the way in which this government wants to.

I jocularly spoke about why members opposite ought to support this amendment. I think supporting this amendment would in fact get them off the hook. I think they are in a perilous situation as a government. I think they have little prospect of surviving in the situation of implementing legislation that was not part of their agenda. I remember a Prime Minister who went to the Australian people on the basis that there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead'. (Time expired)

See this speech in context