Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee’s report entitled Report 100: treaties tabled on 25 June 2008.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—The treaties committee’s 100th report is probably our most important ever. The Labor and Greens members of the treaties committee have adopted a science based, evidence based approach to the issue of global heating. After examining the evidence, we have concluded that it is in Australia’s interests to get global action delivering deep cuts in carbon emissions in order to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million or lower by 2050.

Our second recommendation concerns targets. It is hard to see how the world can meet the 450 parts per million or lower figure unless the developed countries are willing to cut greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050. So we recommend that the Australian government be willing to adopt an 80 per cent target and to take that target as a negotiating position to Copenhagen in December this year.

Generally, greenhouse gas emissions are measured against a 1990 baseline. This is very onerous for Australia, because we were expressly permitted to increase our emissions by eight percent in the first Kyoto period and because the inaction of the Howard government left us tracking at 20 per cent carbon emissions above 1990 levels by 2020. So it may be that our commitment to an 80 per cent cut should be a commitment to cut by 80 per cent from now on. This would amount to a cut of two per cent every year from 2010 to 2050—challenging, but achievable. We cannot change our past, but we must change our future.

Chapter 4 talks about the ways in which we can reduce carbon and other greenhouse gases in Australia to meet this challenging target. In Darwin, the committee heard important evidence about the emissions of huge savannah-burning fires. In 2006, savannah burning accounted for almost two per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Dr Jeremy Russel-Smith said that moving to a program of managed savannah burning, using traditional indigenous fire management practices, could reduce Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions by one per cent. We have recommended that the Australian government work through the Council of Australian Governments and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to reduce emissions from savannah burning from Northern Australia.

We heard about emissions from motor vehicles and have recommended that the government work through the Council of Australian Governments to establish a high-quality integrated public transport system, including light rail technology. We also heard a lot of evidence about the importance of renewable energy technologies—like solar, wind and geothermal—low-emissions technologies and energy efficiency. Clearly this is the way of the future. The committee has recommended that the Australian government establish a coordinating mechanism through the Council of Australian Governments to ensure integration of carbon reduction actions across all states, territories and levels of government.

The final chapter of the report deals with adaptation to the global heating which is now inevitable. The design of our buildings could be better. Australia is not a one-size-fits-all country. The committee has recommended that the government direct the Australian Building Codes Board to review the Building Code of Australia to make it flexible enough so that we get the right building for the location.

We also heard evidence from Dr Clive McAlpine in Brisbane that land clearing reduces rainfall. In both Australia and the Amazon, studies indicate that cutting down trees reduces rainfall. This is very significant for southern Australia in particular. In southern Australia we have been battling drought for years now, and all the latest climate science suggests that drought in both south-west and south-east Australia will be more severe and more frequent. The significance of Dr McAlpine’s work is that retaining native vegetation, and indeed re-establishing native vegetation, is something we can do in Australia to help our situation here. It does not matter what other countries are doing; this is something we can do for ourselves. The committee has recommended that the Australian government investigate using revegetation as an adaptation mechanism to reduce temperature and increase rainfall in applicable parts of Australia. The committee’s final recommendation is for an inquiry into adaptation strategies for climate change. This inquiry should include consideration of projected sea level rise due to climate change, and its impact upon Australian coastal communities and neighbouring countries.

The Liberal and National party members of the committee have produced a dissenting report. Essentially, their approach in opposition is the same as it was in government—delay, frustrate, scuttle, undermine, block and do nothing. Indeed, they continue to contest not just the judgment of the electorate in 2007 but the very climate science itself. Yesterday, Professor Will Steffen from the ANU was asked about the climate science debate and the extent of scientific consensus on climate change. Professor Steffen replied, ‘Well, if it was a soccer game, the score at half time is 99 to one.’ I am astonished that with a half-time score like that the Liberal and National parties continue to bet on the side which is down one to 99. Their action is a kick in the teeth of the best interests of the farmers they claim to represent. According to ABARE, if we do not act on climate change then exports of key commodities will fall by 63 per cent in the next 20 years.

In conclusion, I thank my fellow committee members and the treaties committee secretariat for their hard work in bringing together this very detailed and very significant report. I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.