Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. I refer to the minister’s reported scepticism about the destructive role of carbon dioxide as a key contributor to the causes of climate change. Can the minister explain why he relies on the work of one Danish scientist to inform his views rather than on the 2,500 world-renowned scientists who contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Can the minister confirm that he is still a climate change sceptic? If so, was it his idea to stall government action for a few more decades, and how does this scepticism sit with the Prime Minister’s recent concession that greenhouse gases and climate change are linked? Why is the minister reporting what he calls practical, sensible approaches to greenhouse gas reduction if he cannot see that link?

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

I think Senator Allison is referring to a letter that I wrote to Mr Ian Kiernan, the very successful head of the Clean Up Australia campaign, in which I congratulated him on his campaign. But I have noted that Mr Kiernan had an interview with Mr Charles Woolley in which my name was raised and in which they both referred to ‘scientific loonies’ in the context of anyone who did not totally and unconditionally accept that climate change, to the extent that climate is changing on the warm side, is all the result of human activity. All I did was write to Mr Kiernan.

Putting my own views to one side, I would point out that there does remain a scientific debate about this matter. Those in the scientific world who remain to be convinced that anthropogenic CO emissions are the complete cause of global warming are significant in number and significant in prestige in the scientific community, so it is a bit rich to call them scientific loonies. That is the background, I think, to Senator Allison’s question to me.

Of course there is still some debate in the scientific community on the extent to which anthropogenic CO emissions are contributing to global warming; that is just a fact. It is certainly also true that the IPCC, the UN body, does seem to have achieved consensus in relation to its view that human induced CO emissions are the primary cause of the extent of the global warming that we have seen in the late 20th century. We as a government have been conscious of that view and acting upon that view for some considerable time. Indeed, our position on this goes back 10 years. It was 1997, only a year after our election, when we actively engaged on this issue. We set up the world’s first national greenhouse office. We instituted a range of programs, with significant expenditures behind them, to seek to increase the amount of abatement of greenhouse gases, to encourage industry to reduce its emissions, to encourage Australians to reduce their emissions and to provide incentives to low-emission technologies. So we have a very proud record on that matter.

What we have always said, however, is that, while we will take prudent action to ensure that Australia makes a contribution to reducing the levels of anthropogenic CO emissions, we are not going to threaten the very foundations of the Australian economy or the foundations of Australian jobs. It is not the Liberal Party that is running around threatening the jobs of workers in the coal industry; it is those on the Labor side and the Greens’ side. It is Mr Garrett who is threatening the jobs in the coal industry. Mr Garrett thinks the coal industry’s time has gone and we should shut it down. We do not agree with that. We were pleased to see Mr Rudd join us in advocating investment in clean coal technology, which we see as important in ensuring that Australia retains its comparative advantage in relatively cheap power while at the same time ensuring that, as we generate that power, we reduce the level of CO emissions generated as a result.

It is important for national governments to be aware of the view in relation to the contribution of anthropogenic CO to global warming, and to be conscious that a scientific debate still remains about that matter; to take measures prudently and within our capacity to afford them; and to encourage the research, development and production of low-emission technologies. At the same time, we have to ensure that we do not threaten the livelihoods of Australian workers, and that will continue to be the foundation of our policy.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The minister evaded my question about whether he is a sceptic or not, so we will assume that he is. Can the minister explain his preference for nuclear power and so-called clean coal? Does he acknowledge that these are expensive options compared with renewable energy? Did the minister see the comment last week by a former BHP head, Mr Paul Anderson, that CO waste storage may be as difficult to deal with as nuclear waste? Does he agree with that or does he have handy a scientist who says geosequestration is secure and cheaper than wind power?

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

What I did notice today was an interesting article as a result of a study by the well-known economist, Dr Peter Brain, which indicated that putting a price on carbon in this country is going to particularly hit unemployed and low-income Australians. They are the ones who would suffer most from any move to put a price on carbon. Again, that is something of which governments must be extremely conscious in their moves in this area.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order, Mr President. I did not ask about a carbon price signal, though I might have done, or a carbon tax or anything of the sort. Could you remind the minister to focus his answer on the questions which I raised. That would be useful.

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

Minister, you have 30 seconds to complete your answer.

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

Mr President, my response was pertinent to the question. My point is that any intervention which raises the cost of electricity and the cost of power is going to hurt poorer Australians more than others. That is a simple fact of life and this parliament must bear that in mind in any interventions it seeks to make in this matter. The fact is that anything we do in relation to encouraging alternative energy supplies or to nuclear, geosequestration et cetera is going to raise the price of generating power, and that will hurt lower income and unemployed Australians more than anybody else.