Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Five days ago when I started my remarks on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007 I indicated my disquiet that this was yet a further example of the lack of consultation that characterises the way in which the government develops its policies. This bill has been looked at by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, which held a public hearing on 3 September. That public hearing was characterised by groups like the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which represents major Australian emitters, indicating that the government had not consulted them when the bill was drafted. Likewise, state governments indicated that they were not consulted. Environment groups testified that the reporting thresholds were too high and that more information should be publicly disclosed. In the short public discussion through that process, we saw great problems with the way that the government has ignored sitting down with stakeholders to try and make sure that the piece of legislation that is before us is appropriate. Certainly the opposition has come to the conclusion that, regrettably, the way in which this bill is couched has the potential to slow action. It might also undermine, at least in the short term, some of the initiatives that have been put in place by the state government.

Labor have a different tradition and a modern attitude to the way in which we should put in place these pieces of public policy. That has been characterised by previous governments. Certainly the intent of new leadership is to show that, by sitting down with stakeholders, we can achieve outcomes that are solid and can be more readily achieved. The Prime Minister has come into this place quite often and talked about coal and has indicated from across the chamber that he believed the opposition’s attitude was a threat to the jobs of coalminers. That was a total fix and was spin being placed on the reality of Labor’s position. That has now been proven by the joint announcement last week of the ACF, the Australian Conservation Foundation, and the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division. When two parties to a discussion about public policy like the ACF and the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division come forward with an agreed policy about a direction for action on climate change, it shows the paucity of the position that has been often put by the Prime Minister.

Both Don Henry, the Executive Director of ACF, and Tony Maher, the General President of the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division, indicated their unanimous support and called for the government and the opposition to commit to (1) setting science based legislative targets to cut greenhouse emissions, (2) substantially increasing the existing mandatory renewable energy target and (3) joining the international effort by ratifying the Kyoto protocol before the end of 2007. Tony Maher went on further to say that he felt that the Prime Minister and not conservationists were the biggest threat to coalminers. The main debate has been going on not at the extreme ends of this debate but in the middle. Tony Maher indicated that it is clearer day by day:

That decade of inaction means that we’re a decade behind where we need to be in terms of clean coal technology.

There we have it. We have a different attitude to the way in which we can go about ensuring that we reach the outcomes. We can reach those outcomes if we have a government that embraces inclusion rather than a government—such as the Howard government—that has been very exclusive in its dealings about public policy. Who else can contribute to the way in which we achieve outcomes that are necessary for climate change? In this case, the analogy is correct: the work is at the coalface. The point is that these things are going to be implemented at every part of the chain. If we do it domestically then we are better placed to not only dictate to but, more importantly, assist those with whom we trade in the wider global market for our resources to ensure that they use those resources in the cleanest way possible. To consider that the emerging giants like China and India are not interested in ensuring that their use of our coal is the best and cleanest way is to not give them credit for their understanding. They recognise that they cannot develop and grow their economies in the absence of ensuring that they treat their environment in the most sustainable way possible.

This is the challenge for us all. That is why it is absolutely churlish of the government not to recognise that, by not taking that step and ratifying the Kyoto protocol, they place themselves outside of the discussions that will continue. Their catchcry is to act in Australia’s best interest. We now come to a stage where the next step—a multilateral international agreement on climate change flowing on from the Kyoto protocol—is the game in town. To put Australia outside of the processes to ensure that that is going to happen simply seems irresponsible and not in Australia’s best interest.

So we confront an opportunity in the run-up to the next election for the Australian public to sit in judgement on two sets of policies or directions in this area which are polls apart. They can decide that, after a decade of inaction, the attitude that we should see is one that is in some parts softly-softly but, more drastically, is done in closed quarters, without open debate. Contrast that with the way the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, has ensured that, in the development of Labor’s policies, we sat down with stakeholders to have an acute understanding of the way matters economic, matters environmental and matters social are very important to the challenge of confronting climate change. So when we look at a piece of legislation such as the one before us it should in fact become a tool for us to reach the goals that we need. It is important that we get the best tools, the most appropriate way of going forward.

It is interesting that in the run-up to APEC we had this indication by the Prime Minister that, by getting climate change on the agenda, this would be one of the most significant discussions that we would see. The Sydney declaration, whilst in its aspirational sense is perhaps of some importance, I contend is of little importance compared with the journey that we have been on because it is based on an assumption that countries such as China, which were outside those target processes of Kyoto, were in some way not engaged in the continuing debate. If you look at the number of countries that are involved in the Kyoto processes and the Kyoto protocol, it is much greater than the number that had the target set as protocol 1 countries of the Kyoto protocol. I think what we really need to see is that once and for all we have a national government that is willing to show leadership on this issue and that is willing to sit down with all the stakeholders—the industry groups, the state government and those within the community who have a special interest in these matters—and together go forward.

As I said earlier in this debate, that was the attitude that characterised the Hawke-Keating years, when there were negotiations where people sat down and got directions that were agreed by all parties—that feeling of consensus, accords and other processes that enable us to go forward on a complete basis of inclusion in the best interests of the Australian community. (Time expired)

See this speech in context