Senator HEFFERNAN —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill. Will the minister explain to the Senate why it is in Australia's national interests for there to be a balanced equitable outcome on greenhouse gas emissions? Secondly, does the government's policy on greenhouse gas enjoy bipartisan support?

Senator HILL —It is an important issue, and Australia is contributing to a good greenhouse outcome in the Berlin mandate process in the lead-up to the Kyoto conference. Australia does so because it accepts that climate change is occurring and that steps must be taken to protect the environment. We believe that for there to be an effective international outcome in reducing greenhouse gases it must be fair and achievable. In other words, a successful agreement in Kyoto will be one that is fair and achievable. It follows that we are not in favour of a discriminatory approach, where the impact falls unfairly on some nations. We are not in favour of unfair sacrifices, and that is of course why we have argued the position for differentiation.

It is worth remembering to this background that Australia produces only 1.4 per cent of all world greenhouse gas emissions. Notwithstanding, therefore, that whatever happens in Australia will have very little effect upon the global outcome, we are still prepared to carry a reasonable burden but we are not prepared to sell out Australian national interests to do so. In particular, for the benefit of the Australian Democrats, we are not prepared to sell out thousands of Australian jobs.

Our position is clear and unequivocal. As we move towards Kyoto one would hope that that position would gain support across the parliamentary process. In that light, we are somewhat disturbed to see some signs that the Labor Party is now moving—in some misjudged effort, I suspect—to gain support from minorities within this country. On 25 June, Mr Beazley said:

I would be reluctant to go down the road of committing ourselves to mandatory targets . . . We don't commit ourselves sight unseen to anything.

That seems a fair and reasonable statement. But what did he say today? He picked up on Mr Evans, who decided to take the lead. I will deal with Mr Evans first. He said:

We do see a case for targets: the consensus in the past within this country has been in favour of voluntary targets, but if the consensus internationally moved towards something more binding I don't think we'd be wanting to stand out against that.

In other words, we would not want to be standing up for Australian jobs; it is better to move towards the international consensus. Mr Beazley, not prepared to allow Mr Evans to get out in front, now says:

The international consensus is moving towards mandatory targets . . . we cannot afford to be a rogue and stand outside on international consensus.

It now seems that Mr Beazley and Mr Evans are moving towards demanding that Australia sign on to legally binding targets, perhaps at the European level, that will result in the loss of thousands of jobs, without even knowing what those targets are.

Why do I say at the European level? Because Mr Evans, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, hinted as such on his last international tour. He got to England and talked with his friends from government in Great Britain and decided that we should be adopting a different position, not an Australian interest position. He said:

I had an absolute earful . . . from a number of people in Europe last week, including the British Foreign Secretary who said that the Australian government was simply not credible.

In other words, what he says is back the British position—a 15 per cent reduction that would lead to the loss of thousands of Australian jobs—rather than an outcome that is fair and achievable. Madam President, this is a vitally important matter and it is important that the Labor Party supports a reasonable outcome rather than one based on selfish interests. (Time expired)