Mr ROBB (3:40 PM) —Despite all the huffing and puffing on the other side of the House, and we just heard more of it from the member for Grayndler, despite the fact that the opposition actually proposed this MPI and despite the fact that they presented a private member's bill earlier this week, in many respects this is a nondebate. There is no debate if there is only one side making a case. Over the past few days, as this greenhouse issue has been discussed, only one side has made a serious attempt to address the issues, only one side has a clearly articulated plan, only one side has made the effort to weigh the costs and benefits for Australia, only one side is working with the facts and only one side is putting forward a substantiated, argued case—the Howard government.

I have read all the speeches given in this House by Labor members over the last few days. I have heard more of them today in this House. Without exception, they all boil down to pages and pages and pages of ideology and simplistic rhetoric. All of this is against a background of a constant refrain, a slogan or a mantra: `Sign the Kyoto protocol'. It is all you hear when you turn on the news. It is all you hear in the House from the opposition—a mantra: `Sign the Kyoto protocol'.

I have looked for substantive arguments against which I could judge the steps the government has taken over several years to address greenhouse gas emissions. There is nothing. It is as though every Labor speech simply ignores the raft of initiatives that Australia has in place and has undertaken. For instance, the Labor Party makes no substantive comment on Australia's remarkable achievement of meeting its target of no more than eight per cent above 1990 emission levels at a time—you have not heard this mentioned once in this House by the opposition—when the size of Australia's economy has virtually doubled. It has required a massive increase in energy to drive that growth.

Labor has not spent one second wondering how it is that Australia has delivered on its greenhouse targets, yet all the major countries making the argument to sign the protocol are falling well short: France, 10 per cent shortfall; the Netherlands, 12 per cent shortfall; Germany, 1.3 per cent shortfall; Italy, 10 per cent shortfall; Spain, 33 per cent shortfall. The opposition has had the opportunity to wonder about these things: `What is the motive behind these countries pushing so hard for others to sign when they in fact are falling well short?'

The Labor Party makes no comment on the fact that the Kyoto protocol will at best deliver about a one per cent reduction in global greenhouse emissions. Everyone acknowledges that, while the experts agree that what is required is a 50 to 60 per cent reduction in emissions. Surely this huge gap warrants some consideration and some discussion—especially by the party that is introducing these debates to the House.

We know the US, China and India have a longstanding resistance to binding targets. If there is no global consensus on achieving a one per cent cut, surely the prospect of the Kyoto protocol and all that goes on behind it, leading to cuts of 50 to 60 per cent, warrants some consideration and some deliberation. But what do we get from the opposition? Just the mantra: `Sign the Kyoto protocol'. In a similar vein, the Labor Party makes no comment on how we meet the increasing energy needs of the world yet put less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Signing the protocol delivers a one per cent reduction, and even that must be in doubt when you consider this morning's press where we read that the Brits are back-pedalling furiously, with Tony Blair proposing that British industry produce about 20 million tonnes more carbon dioxide than the limits they had agreed to.

How does the Kyoto protocol sit with the legitimate world expectations about solving world poverty? Again we have heard none of that. The Labor Party make no comment on Australia's existing commitment to renewable energy. It is as though we have done nothing. We have a world-leading renewable energy target, we have a historic $75 million solar cities program and there is a $1.7 billion domestic investment in our climate change strategy. They are part of a comprehensive plan—no mention of it. Even if they disagree with it, we should understand why in their view it makes no contribution. They just walk through it, ignore it and go on with the mantra.

The Labor Party are silent on the way an emissions trading scheme would affect electricity prices for Australian families. Given every opportunity today, there is not a mention of it. They are also silent on how that scheme would stop in its tracks energy investment in Australia. No mention is made by the opposition of the $8 per tonne price of CO2 in the fledgling European emissions trading market and the impact that would have on new energy intensive investments in Australia, including new electricity generating capacity, a critical issue for all Australians. Effectively, the carbon-trading scheme is a tax. At the moment it is an $8 a tonne CO2 tax. That is why Hydro Aluminium, a European company, recently signed a heads of agreement to develop one of the world's largest aluminium plants in Qatar at the same time that they were preparing to phase out their aluminium plants in Norway and review their plant in Germany in order to meet the cost of future emission targets. This means that energy intensive projects are already starting to move out of Kyoto countries into non-Kyoto countries.

This fledgling market has hardly started, yet serious investment is moving out of Kyoto countries into non-Kyoto countries. We were told this would not happen. We were told that this scheme would not threaten the lives and livelihoods of Australians, would not increase electricity prices and would not see investment leave this country, but we already have evidence in Europe that it is taking place. We have China and India on our doorstep, amongst the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, eager to grab energy intensive investments from Australia. That will mean higher electricity prices for families. That will also mean a loss of jobs and a loss of energy intensive projects like paper, aluminium, electricity generation, coal and other such projects.

The Labor Party engages in no way on the scientific debate that underpins the Kyoto protocol, other than to pour scorn over anyone who seeks to be satisfied on the modelling and the science that underpins the Kyoto protocol, a protocol which will cost trillions of dollars to implement. Choking off debate, as it has, only invites community suspicion. The Labor Party makes no comment on the fact that Australia's prosperity has been and continues to be built on an abundance of cheap energy sources. That is our past; that is our future. That is what has given us a competitive edge in this country. That has given us the living standards that we all enjoy. The living standards that we take for granted would be seriously compromised if investment in those traditional energy sources were discouraged.

This matter of public importance is little more than a stunt. The Labor Party's contribution to the debate has been largely to peddle fear and chant a slogan. Labor have a slogan; we have a policy. Those on the other side of the House are like one giant yoga class with everyone chanting their mantra: `Sign the Kyoto protocol'. It is like a cult following. They are all in another space. They are certainly not in this debate. There is no attempt to argue the substantive issues. There is no attempt to put together a detailed plan. Labor have simply not done the work on this issue and they are trying to play politics, cynically playing on the legitimate community concerns about climate change.

It is symptomatic of the Labor approach to so many policy areas. They have not done the hard policy work for nine years, yet they wonder why they are still in opposition. I can remember noodle nation and the gold card. That is about all that they have produced in nine years, and they wonder why they are sitting over there in opposition. Labor's contribution is a lazy stunt. But it is also a dangerous stunt because it creates a moral hazard for our nation. If they keep banging on with this mantra, more Australians will think that all we have to do is sign the protocol when what we have to do is to continue the hard work—the deliberate work, the exhaustive work—that this government has done to put in place a plan to reduce greenhouse gases in this country and around the world. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The discussion is concluded.