Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

The Howard government just does not get climate change, and the minister for the environment in question time plays word games knowing full well that Labor’s policy announcement today is to double the funding for the installation of solar power—a policy he has previously supported. This morning the Prime Minister said:

Many of the things that (Sir Nicholas Stern) is talking about are already our policies.

The question here is: what planet is the Prime Minister on? Sir Nicholas says: ratify the Kyoto protocol—the government says no; Labor says yes. Sir Nicholas says: cut greenhouse emissions by 60 per cent by 2050—the government says no; Labor says yes. Sir Nicholas says: establish an emissions trading scheme—the government says no; Labor says yes.

After 11 years in power it is about time the government got fair dinkum about climate change. Seven weeks ago we received the first instalment of the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the findings of that report shook the world and received saturation coverage, including here in Australia. Called Climate change 2007: the physical science basis, it confirmed what we already knew, what many people were feeling—that is, that climate change is real and that it will hurt our economy, our environment and our children’s future. Using terms like ‘unequivocal’, it walked us through the bone-dry science and graphs and concluded that there was a very real possibility that within the next 100 years we could be living on a planet three to four degrees hotter than today.

On Good Friday coming, the second volume of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report will be released in Brussels. This volume is called Impacts, adaption and vulnerability. The first report gave us the skeleton outline of what to expect; Good Friday’s report will get to the heart of the matter. Impacts, adaption and vulnerability will take us to the centre of what is best described as a potential disaster, a centre made up of six billion or so human beings: families in China, India and Australia; nomads; city slickers; itinerant workers— people going about their daily lives but living under the shadow of impending and growing climate change. This report will show how the unfolding crisis will impact on the very vulnerable and on those of us who like to believe we are beyond such vulnerability. If the first volume was a shock to some, the second volume is likely to be a heartbreaker.

Before the report is released and the storm of climate change is upon us in earnest, it is vital to remember that the challenge of climate change is essentially a challenge to human initiative and will. For us in this place, that means political will. The first report made it clear that we still have the time and capacity to act in order to prevent the worst-case scenarios, that there is nothing inevitable about the outcome, and that is what gives this issue such and urgency and a necessary moral component. That moral component—moral imperative, in fact—is to build a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.

The scientific consensus is clear on the scale of the challenge, and there is a growing consensus across Australia on the need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse emissions; for an emissions trading scheme; and for a portfolio approach to climate change which includes clean coal, renewable energy and energy efficiency—all part of Labor’s climate change policy suite. This consensus is increasingly shared by farmers, scientists, business people, clergy, mums and dads—people around the country, all wanting action and all despairing at the wasted opportunities.

This is the new politics, and Labor’s national climate change summit this Saturday is a symbol, and a practical one, of the new consensus that has emerged—a new politics, a national conversation on climate change. Of course, we would welcome the coalition joining with all of us as we confront this threat, but how can they? On the need for urgent action, their ranks are thick with those who still insist climate change is a left-wing green conspiracy. I look forward to the minister coming up and disassociating himself from the remarks of various members, including the member for Tangney, that have been made in the House on this issue. Not surprisingly, some of those who are most sceptical about climate change are also the most supportive of nuclear reactors.

The Howard government, having previously resisted emissions trading, finally initiated a task force to examine the possibility of a carbon emissions trading scheme, under the lash of appalling polls and a business community that is ready to up stakes and leave for good, that is disenchanted with the government’s approach to climate change and its failure to move vigorously to introduce a national emissions trading scheme.

The government started to talk about emissions trading but they still have not flicked a switch and agreed to establish a scheme. In question time today, we referred to the case of Global Renewables, one of Australia’s leading recycling companies, which on 27 March announced it was leaving Australia. The chairman of Global Renewables, Dr John White, stated very clearly:

When Australia does get serious about renewables, we will hopefully be able to come back.

It could not be much clearer than that: it is bye-bye to Global Renewables and other clean energy companies until we see a change of government and a real commitment to clean energy.

The coalition’s idea of a portfolio approach to energy is to insist that it is a nuclear future—a future some 15, 20 or 25 years away—or no future at all, and that only nuclear energy or coal can provide baseload power for the nation. The gas industry, described by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources here at the dispatch box as ‘selfish and short-sighted’, is getting pretty tired of hearing that, I can assure the House. In fact, until the minister for the environment came upon the light bulbs idea recently, it is hard to think of any new idea on climate change from the Howard government.

Let’s not forget that the government has failed to introduce a single piece of legislation on climate change, and there is no climate change trigger in the environment legislation. I think the Treasurer today went out of his way not to actually utter the words. Then there were preposterous rhetorical extravagances when the minister for the environment simply said, ‘Australia leads the world on climate change.’ Does the minister mean to remind Australians that on a per capita basis of greenhouse emissions we are a world leader, that in terms of emissions we rank around 10th overall amongst nations and that we continue to increase emissions, which are expected to increase by 27 per cent by 2020, with no climate change strategy in place?

Notwithstanding any of this, the fact is that the Howard government have given Australia 11 years of denying the reality of climate change. Despite the fact that there were numerous reports pointing the way, they simply failed to act. Then, with the science and the community stacking up against them, they relinquished their approach of denial and replaced it with a strategy of minimising the impacts of global warming, while playing the game of political point scoring. But the community is over this behaviour. If the Prime Minister had taken a brief look at some of the submissions being made to the task group on emissions trading, he would have seen that the business community has also had a gutful. Westpac’s submission makes the point that the government’s failure to act has an impact on investor confidence, saying:

Business is … calling for greater clarity on how companies are strategically and tactically managing their response to the implications of, and exposure to, climate change.

BHP Billiton calls for not only an efficient, effective and equitable domestic Australian emissions trading scheme but one that also ‘facilitates the trading of emissions entitlements and reductions and the crediting of offsets developed or purchased in other countries, such as CDM or other project based credits,’ which sounds terribly like Kyoto and the CDMs that attach to that international agreement, the very agreement that we on this side of the House support, which the government regularly mocks.

The Prime Minister has been willing to play possum on climate change, but Australian business are not. They want to get on with it. They recognise that there are opportunities and that they need to be taken now. As Labor questioned and quizzed the Prime Minister and his ministers about why they ignored all the reports and the evidence that was building a frightening picture of climate change over the last 11 years, we received nothing of substance in this House. We queried the Howard government on their inaction—inaction that, in the light of the IPCC report, is best described as a dereliction of the government’s duty of care. We asked the Prime Minister, for example, to formally repudiate the statement of the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in which he said, ‘I’m a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change.’ The Prime Minister said, ‘No, I will not formally repudiate it.’ On closer reflection it is clear that the Prime Minister was wide awake and that the subversion of the science and the scrambling of the message were the government’s approach to climate change.

The House would be well aware of the investigative work done by ABC’s Four Corners in 2006. That program and the subsequent investigations revealed the pressure that climate scientists were put under while working for CSIRO. So, if the coalition were not allowing CSIRO to do their work and give them frank and fearless scientifically based advice, the question is: who was advising them? The Howard government have had 11 long years to act with credibility, integrity and intelligence to address the outstanding issue of our time, but today’s newspapers are alive with one message that has been delivered by Nicholas Stern: action is cheaper than inaction, the time to act is now, the targets are critical and delay is not an option.

Over the next days and months we can expect the government to open up their wallets and spend big on climate change policies because the government have seen the polling. The government know the political risks. They know the political risks of an 11-year record of indifference, denial and inaction. They recognise that the public is angry and is ready for someone to stand up and say, ‘We will address climate change in a profound, sincere and appropriate way.’ The government have simply failed to do that.

The government here is all about protecting their political interests but not the national interests. In question time the Prime Minister made some remarks about the composition of the mandatory renewable energy scheme. As far as I understand it, I am not aware of any formal state government position either seeking the phasing out of mandatory renewable energy targets or saying that it is incompatible with emissions trading. But this is typical of the response of the government on an issue of this importance and moment. When countries in other parts of the world are clearly taking up the challenge to start producing energy from renewable sources, the government maintain their hostility and aversion to renewable energy. They just do not get it.

Let us be clear: a government full of climate change sceptics cannot deliver climate change solutions. Whatever responses the government may come up with from now until the election, their 11-year record of delay and inaction is imprinted on the minds of Australians—and rightly so, for the Howard government has never been fair dinkum about climate change. Labor has climate change solutions that will address this issue. Labor will bring the Australian people together to work our way through the challenge of climate change, and that is the difference between the two parties in this House. One has the solutions, recognises the seriousness of this issue and is prepared and willing to act resolutely and the other is not.

Today Labor announced a $50 million solar home power plan. This is a practical policy that will allow around 12,000 Australian households to install clean, green power over the next four years. Importantly, it is a plan that supports our local solar power industry, creating jobs and opening the gateway to one of the fastest growing and cleanest technologies in the world.

And this Saturday Labor will host the first national climate change summit in Australia because we are committed to open dialogue with the community, business and the scientific communities to build a national consensus as we tackle the reality of climate change. In the weeks and months ahead we will deliver solutions—solid policy—to enable this country to meet the climate change challenge, and to meet it with confidence. However difficult the future may be—however difficult climate change makes it—we will not run away from it. We will not ignore it and we will not play games with it like the Howard government has done. Labor is committed to being fair dinkum on climate change.

See this speech in context