Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

It is nice to have an audience! Australia can and should be an environmental showcase. We have wonderful riches in this country—a great diversity of flora and fauna, our landscapes, our mountains, our beaches. They really are second to none around the world. Unfortunately, we have failed to look after this magnificent heritage in the way that we should have done. If we look at all the objective indicators of environmental performance—salinity and the problems of salt, river water quality, decline of the Murray-Darling Basin, land clearing, species extinctions and the number of threatened flora and fauna species—we see that Australia’s environment is deteriorating. In some places, we have managed to completely trash it.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act has real potential to assist us, to help out, in this important task of protecting our magnificent environment for future generations, and as custodians on behalf of the rest of the world. But it has never been used to try to achieve that important objective—and I want to return to that matter. These hundreds of pages now before us in the shape of this bill, the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006,  will not solve this problem either. So I am not going to support this bill, but I am going to support the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. I particularly wish to support those parts of his amendment which go to the issue of global warming and the need for a greenhouse trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Global warming or climate change is the elephant in the room in any debate about the environment both in this country and in other countries around the world, and yet there is not one mention of global warming in the hundreds of pages of amendments which we are dealing with here.

The impact of global warming on Australia is very severe. We are experiencing it now in the shape of the drought. Back in 2002 when I was shadow environment minister, I made reference to the drought which we were experiencing then and the link between it and greenhouse gas emissions and to the predictions of the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and scientific experts right around the world that what greenhouse gas emissions mean and what increased levels and concentrations of carbon dioxide mean for Australia is more severe and more frequent droughts particularly in southern Australia. Back in 2002 there was not a whole lot of attention paid to that, but I hope the things that I and others said at that time had some impact in terms of raising awareness.

I am pleased to see a much greater level of awareness as we experience yet another drought—indeed, what is effectively a continuation of the 2002 drought for many parts of Australia. We see evidence coming in that there will be reduced rainfall for Perth on a long-term basis, reduced rainfall for my own home city of Melbourne on a long-term basis and reduced rainfall right across southern Australia; that there is a much greater understanding of the fact that this is being caused by global warming, which in turn is caused by greenhouse gas emissions; and that this is the shape of the future.

This drought has of course its greatest impact on farmers and on rural communities. It is causing great hardship in rural communities. It is threatening their future because water is of course their lifeblood. Those farmers and those rural communities have been appallingly let down by their Liberal Party and National Party representatives. They have been sold out by those Liberal Party and National Party representatives who, over the years, have sought to undermine and scuttle every effort at tackling global warming and climate change. I say to those farmers: you have been sold out by your Liberal Party and National Party representatives.

The first thing that we need to do to tackle climate change and global warming is to act at the international level because it is a global problem—CO emissions in the atmosphere is a global matter. I had the good fortune to go to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg back in 2002 and I can report that the Australian delegation to that World Summit on Sustainable Development did everything it could to scuttle and undermine serious international efforts to tackle climate change. It undermined anything which went to the idea of targets and timetables committing us or other countries to firm and resolute action to contain and rein in our greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially, in this matter the Prime Minister has been sitting on George W Bush’s lap. We simply will not dare tell the United States or ask the United States to act or do anything in relation to greenhouse emissions. Our farmers should be demanding international action. Kyoto gets scoffed at by members opposite, but if we are on about collective international action—and we need to be on about collective international action—then the Kyoto protocol is terribly important to that process. Of course there is no value in Australia acting unilaterally if nobody else acts. Of course that is right and that is precisely why we need international action, and why we ought to get behind Kyoto and demand that the United States does likewise.

The second thing that farmers ought to be demanding is that we put a price on carbon. That should be in the form of emissions trading so that we enable the market to work. The government talks about technological solutions, but those solutions will not come to pass in the absence of market signals to encourage them and that is why we need to put a price on carbon. The third thing that farmers should be demanding is that we increase the renewable energy target. This government’s renewable energy target is laughable. It is just two per cent, which compares very poorly with that of other countries—and it has been effectively exhausted. Those in the wind energy industry and in other renewable energy industries are now looking offshore to other countries in order to place their projects, because the renewable energy target that we have in place has already been effectively subscribed. We should put a greenhouse trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Global warming impacts very severely in Australia, not just in the shape of drought—although very severely in the shape of drought—but also in the shape of more frequent and more severe bushfires, in the prospective loss of snow in our alpine areas, in the coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef and in the prospect of tropical diseases like dengue fever or even malaria spreading further south. The other area in which it is likely to impact on Australia and on future generations is in climate change refugees. People are probably familiar with the problem of the low-lying islands in the South Pacific—Tuvalu, Kiribati and so on—which are threatened with inundation and effectively extinction by global warming, and the issue of refugees from those countries. New Zealand, for example, has made some offers in that regard. But what about places like Bangladesh? It is not possible to imagine a world in which millions and millions of refugees from climate change seek to enter Australia and other countries. This government has made pitiful and lame excuses for inaction. It has said that Kyoto will not solve the problem; that it is not enough. Well, maybe—but it is a start. Do you ever hear the government calling for more? What it effectively engages in is a counsel of despair. It says, ‘Kyoto won’t solve the problem; therefore, we won’t do anything.’

Then there is renewable energy. You have a Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry who attacks wind farms. What a disgraceful sell-out of Australia’s farmers. You have a Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources who says he is still not convinced it is happening. He is out there with Andrew Bolt and a handful of other dopes who still think that the world is flat and that smoking does not cause lung cancer. I urge these people to go and see the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth and then explain to this nation’s farmers and rural communities that they would sooner see the southern part of Australia turned into a dustbowl, sooner see the southern part of Australia become an uninhabitable desert, than have the courage to tell George W Bush that he is wrong about climate change and global warming. I recently heard the Minister for Foreign Affairs saying it was cowardly to get out of Iraq. I will tell members what is cowardly, and that is refusing to admit you got it wrong. It takes courage to admit you have made a mistake, and the government needs to have the courage to admit that it has been wrong in Iraq and it has been wrong about global warming. It needs to have the courage to go to the President of the United States and say, ‘You have been wrong about Iraq, you have been wrong about global warming and you need to change tack.’ That is what real courage is.

Here in Australia it is said we should not subsidise renewable energy, which is now going offshore due to a lack of support. The government say you should not be providing subsidies; that will cost taxpayers. What do they think is happening to us now as a result of global warming? We are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to farmers in drought relief, with no end in sight. The drought relief budget has rocketed up in the past five years. They need to get serious about renewable energy and serious about things like alternative fuels for cars. They say: ‘We don’t believe in Kyoto, we don’t believe in international action, we don’t believe in emissions trading, we don’t believe in setting a target for emissions reduction by 2050, we don’t believe in increasing the renewable energy target—but it is all right, because we are taking practical measures; we believe in practical measures.’

Recently I heard Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage,  again saying that his government was the first to set up a greenhouse office. All right—but what has it done? Our renewable energy performance is abysmal compared to the rest of the world. We used to be leaders in things like solar energy. The Australian Greenhouse Office has systematically underspent its budget every year since its establishment. Back in 2000-01 it was allocated $230 million and it spent $81 million—nearly $150 million underspent. The next year it was allocated $227 million and again it spent $81 million, another massive underspend. Do you know how the government tackled this problem? They slashed its budget. In subsequent years the Australian Greenhouse Office budget has been cut to between $110 million and $125 million—and still it keeps underspending it. In the eight years since it was established, the Australian Greenhouse Office underspend has been $362,475,000. So much for this government’s commitment to seriously tackling global warming; so much for their commitment to practical measures. The government owe Australians, and Australia’s farmers in particular, an apology for this shameful neglect.

I frequently hear people on the other side, like the Treasurer, talking about debt as a terrible legacy for our children and our grandchildren. It is a terrible legacy for our children and our grandchildren that this government has failed to seriously deal with global warming—future generations will be horrified by this period of wilful inaction—coming up with every reason in the book for inaction: it is not proven, there is scientific doubt, other countries ought to do more, technological change is the answer, nuclear power is the answer. The government comes up with any reason, as long as it is excused and as long as it excuses us here in this place from the need to take action—delay, defer, postpone.

I make the observation that I do not think nuclear is the answer. It is too far away. It requires a lot of water. It requires public subsidies. There is talk of public subsidies in relation to renewable energy—but just have a look at the insurance issues surrounding nuclear power and of course the location of reactors in dealing with the waste products.

This act has plenty of potential, but it has been a failure. The Australia Institute in July last year conducted a five-year assessment of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and its conclusions were:

In almost all areas, the regime has failed to produce any noticeable improvements in environmental outcomes.

                  …              …              …

Despite overwhelming evidence of widespread non-compliance, the Commonwealth has taken only two enforcement actions in relation to the—

environmental assessment and approval regime—

in five years.

                  …              …              …

On the basis of the available evidence, it is hard to describe the ... regime as anything other than a waste of time and money.

And, finally:

... since the ... regime commenced, the condition of Australia’s natural and cultural heritage has continued to decline and the—

environmental assessment and approval—

provisions have not made a noticeable contribution to stopping or reversing this trend.

It is very unfortunate and a damning indictment of the way in which the EPBC Act has been used—or not been used.

Ironically, just about the only time it has been used was not to achieve an environmental objective; it was to block an environmental project. That was the $220 million wind farm proposal in Bald Hills. In the Age, back in April, Sean Dooley, who is a birdwatcher and a writer, wrote concerning the Bald Hills decision:

As a birdwatcher, I must admit it came as something of a pleasant surprise to see a member of this Government professing such deep concern for one of my favourite birds—

that is, the orange-bellied parrot. He continued:

In the past, it didn’t seem to bother them that they bypassed all environment considerations when they wanted to build the new detention centre on Christmas Island, despite its being within spitting distance of one of the largest breeding colonies of the critically endangered Abott’s booby …

He went on to point out that that was a type of sea bird that only nests on Christmas Island, not one of the Minister for Health’s more outrageous comments. Mr Dooley went on to say that the environment minister was:

... shutting down a $220 million wind farm proposal at Bald Hills in South Gippsland on the basis that though the orange-bellied parrot has never actually been recorded there, one might turn up and it may get sliced by the spinning blades of the turbines.

He said:

Wow, and this level of concern from a member of the same party as former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett who called the orange-bellied parrot a “trumped-up corella” when he wanted to move the Coode Island chemical facility to the epicentre of one of its most crucial wintering grounds.

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage stated that ‘the failure to identify orange-bellied parrots does not mean they do not use the area’. Mr Dooley went on to say:

... imagine the truckloads of scorn and derision that would have been dumped on someone such as Bob Brown if he had come out with such a statement.

He went on to say:

If the hypothetical threat of losing one bird to a turbine is too much for the minister to bear, then he must be beside himself to realise that his Government did nothing to stop a wind farm being built at Yambuk in western Victoria right in the vicinity of where real, live, actual—

orange-bellied parrots—

have been regularly recorded in the past few years.

It is incredible. You have an environment minister who blocked the wind farm where the orange-bellied parrots are not but allowed a wind farm where the orange-bellied parrots are. As soon as he was taken to court, he was ducking for cover because he had absolutely no evidence on which to base his decision. Australians and the Australian environment deserve better than this. I urge the House to support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler.

See this speech in context