David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The government’s failure over 11 years to address the urgent environmental and economic challenge of climate change.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources is fond of asserting that the Howard government has done more to tackle climate change than any government in the world and that the climate change record of the Howard government is the envy of the world. It is the case that Australia generally has a proud record of hitting above its weight internationally. It is something which a former Labor minister, Gareth Evans, said here and actually instituted in his career. We have produced many world leaders—in sport: Don Bradman, Ian Thorpe, Lauren Jackson, Liesel Jones and a host of others; in science: Peter Doherty, Macfarland Burnett and Howard Florey; in acting: Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett and Russell Crowe; in literature: Tim Winton; and, in business: Rupert Murdoch. We acknowledge those outstanding Australians, the leadership that they have displayed and the success that they have had in the world. In politics the environment minister proclaims himself and the government as world leaders—and there the comparisons end.

The environment minister is no world leader, nor is his government, and yet he has the gall to say that Australia is leading the world in tackling climate change. Let us just consider what he means when he says that Australia is leading the world by producing the facts in this matter of public importance. Australia is the second highest greenhouse polluter in the world; Australia’s emissions are growing at twice the global rate on average—or nearly; Australia has an effective additional renewable energy target of 0.9 per cent by 2020. In climate change programs since 1996 this government underspends—a $33.7 million underspend on clean energy programs in the last financial year. That does not sound like leading the world. Minister, your statement that Australia is leading the world on climate change is simply a fraud. It is hyperbole and it is spin, but the substance and the facts are that this government, in addressing climate change, is going backwards, and, in terms of Australia meeting its climate challenge, we are worse off now than we were when the government came to power.

The Prime Minister’s guarantee to the Australian people has been made often enough—that his government will actually be judged by the solutions that it delivers. If it cannot deliver climate change solutions, then the Prime Minister’s guarantee is worthless. Not long ago the Prime Minister said he was approaching carbon trading in a methodical way. Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister means by ‘methodical’. In 1997 the environment minister, Robert Hill, established an inquiry into emissions trading; in 1998 the foreign minister backed emissions trading; in 1999 the Australian Greenhouse Office released four discussion papers on emissions trading; in 2003 the Treasurer and the environment minister took a submission to cabinet to establish an emissions trading scheme, which was vetoed by the Prime Minister; in 2003 the government wound up the work of the Australia Greenhouse Office on emissions trading and, of course, the federal government would not cooperate with the states when it introduced its work to consider the establishment of an emissions trading scheme. For the entire period up until climate change became an issue that showed up in its polling, this government has done nothing—absolutely nothing—to take up what was one of the most significant and important elements of addressing greenhouse gas emissions: the establishment of a national emissions trading scheme.

The fact is that the Howard government has wasted a decade, and the fact is that Australia’s greenhouse pollution is spiralling out of control. It is due to increase some 27 per cent by 2020. The challenge for the government is to name the date it will start to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with the need for us to reduce emissions some 60 per cent by 2050. The challenge for the government is to show that it is serious about climate change, not to produce climate change brochures to convince Australians of its merits but rather to actually address the climate change challenge in a significant and profound way.

I had the opportunity on Monday to attend a business leaders for sustainable development conference, and a charter for climate action was delivered at that conference. It identifies three specific measures that it believes governments need to respond to in order to be taken seriously about climate change. What are those measures? They are the very measures that the Howard government refuses and has refused up to now to consider or accommodate: global leadership, a national emissions trading scheme and the setting of targets. It is on those foundations that a sensible framework for addressing climate change actually lies, and it is those particular and specific matters where the Howard government has not delivered.

I believe very strongly that an old era is passing away and a new era is beginning and that our response to the risks and opportunities of climate change is one of the signal parts of this particular era. In the new era, we will build businesses and safeguard the environment by taking climate change seriously. We will build the national consensus that Kevin Rudd has called for in order to strike those actions that are necessary to both reduce emissions and build business. We will not conduct scare campaigns. We will not mislead the public. We will not misrepresent our political opponents. We will get on with the business of enabling the Australian economy to respond to the urgent need to reduce emissions and to build economic prosperity while it is doing that. The work done by Sir Nicholas Stern and the work done by the business leaders roundtable shows conclusively that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and not have a significant impost on the economy. And that is the challenge that this government has to face.

But substantially reducing carbon emissions means understanding what reducing carbon emissions is all about. It was very interesting that a couple of days ago the Prime Minister described the issue of managing the question of the government reducing emissions as an ‘irritant’. I think this word ‘irritant’ shows a great deal about the Prime Minister’s approach, because it was on the same day that he used the word ‘irritant’ that Australia’s track record on tackling climate change was shown by research from the CSIRO, again, to be—and I quote the CSIRO scientist at the time—‘dreadful’. Our emissions were blowing out at nearly twice the global rate, with the perils of greater temperature increase even more likely. You would have thought that something of this consequence would have got more from the Prime Minister than considering managing this issue as an ‘irritant’.

Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, says we should approach climate change as though we are ‘on a war footing’. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says, ‘The debate is over, the jury is in and the time for action is now.’ Yet Australia, under the Howard government, is set to increase its emissions by 27 per cent within 13 years and is one of the worst-performing developed countries in the world. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources says, in Orwellian fashion, that no government is doing more to tackle climate change than the Howard government. It is no wonder that the propaganda blitz is now in full swing as the government tries to deflect attention from its significant public policy failures and tell us that it is doing something else altogether.

Rewind to yesterday and an answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition concerning government market testing on its climate change brochure. The Prime Minister said:

No such decision has been made by me or, to my knowledge, by the government.

Yet the letter from the department of the environment first assistant secretary dated 23 May shows that Blue Moon Research & Planning were appointed to do research for ‘the’ climate change information campaign. I think the use of the word ‘the’ is interesting—not to see whether one should be done or not but really to test the existing material. The appointment of this particular company to do this was made by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications. Our understanding is that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Tony Nutt, sits on this committee and was there at the meeting on 16 April which determined this research contract. We know that there is a mock-up of the brochure and the Prime Minister’s letter, that the letter has been market tested and that it is going to cost Australian taxpayers in the order of—and I quote—$176,000. By five past five or so last evening, the Prime Minister was then saying that the government was still considering whether to send it out. Today the Prime Minister, in answer to a question asking, ‘Has the government entered into a contract to conduct the climate change community information and education campaign?’ used the expression that he was not going to confirm it or otherwise. When the question—whether the government had entered into a contract, yes or no—was asked of him again, the Prime Minister simply failed to answer the question.

I think it is clear that the Howard government is planning a massive propaganda blitz on climate change. The reason for that is fairly clear. Bloomberg.com today has: ‘Howard Risks Political Climate Change as Aussies Warm to Kyoto’. It quotes Clare Idriss, who was so concerned about carbon emissions generated by her wedding guests travelling across Australia that she bought pollution credits to offset the greenhouse gases. There is a debate about that; I am sure the minister will engage on that issue. Idriss says:

... Prime Minister John Howard isn’t doing his part to address climate change. Howard has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon emissions, saying it will hurt the economy of the world’s largest coal exporter.

Paul Verness, a Perth accountant, is not impressed. He says he is switching allegiances to Labor:

“Howard’s climate change policy is a joke,” said Verness ... “It’s been dreamed up because he knows it’s on people’s minds, not because he cares about what impact we are having on the environment.”

Senate estimates revealed that there was underspending on climate change matters in the current budget. If the government is doing the best of any government in the world to tackle climate change, how is it that it remains underspent on its climate change budget? But, more importantly, how is it that we do not have a plan or targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? This new era is about understanding the challenges and being prepared to address the future. The door is closing on the old way of doing things and opening on the new. Again we say in this House that climate change represents the biggest challenge that this generation of politicians will confront, and it is one that the Howard government consistently fails to measure.

Just to remind us that the science is in and the evidence is compelling: the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years; the Murray River is at its lowest level for over 100 years; and rising sea levels are flooding Pacific islands and threatening our coast. If action is not taken, the CSIRO predicts that water supplies for cities and agriculture will drop by 25 per cent by 2030 while the population will increase by over 20 per cent. Labor has committed to cut Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Not only is the science in, but the economics is in as well. Study after study shows that the cost of action is far less than the cost of inaction. As companies as diverse as News Corporation and other leading corporates around Australia begin to take on the task of reducing emissions, there is only one odd man out—and that is the Howard government.

Labor have a comprehensive approach to climate change that has been consistent from the start. We would ratify the Kyoto protocol. We would set up a national emissions trading scheme. We have already set up a $500 million national clean coal fund. We have already announced a solar green energy and water renovations plan for Australian households. We have already set up a $500 million green car innovation fund. We have already indicated that we would substantially increase the mandatory renewable energy target. We have already said that, when it comes to climate change, we would make climate a priority for government.

The marker of fitness to govern is to understand the true extent and scale of the issues that lie ahead. Climate change, without any doubt, represents the most significant and important issue that we have to manage. With a framework of policy suites in place, this party on this side of the House is ready to do the job. The question is whether the party on the other side understands the scale and importance of addressing climate change. On the evidence so far, the answer is no. On the evidence so far, all we have had are assertions. I am sure that we will hear some assertions from the minister when he gets to his feet—assertions about how small is the size of our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and how we should not focus on it at all.

I invite the minister to consider that argument in some detail now, because it seems to me that it goes to the heart of the government’s approach. What they are really saying is: ‘We’ll manage climate change in a way that we think we can. There are some of us who do not think it is particularly serious, but we understand that there is some public concern about it.’ At the same time, they will seek to deflect the key challenge—which is to reduce greenhouse emissions—by saying: ‘Look at our contribution to the global average’ or ‘Look at what other countries are doing.’ Prime Minister—

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He wants to be Prime Minister.

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

That is clear. Environment Minister, the buck literally stops here because it is up to the government to set about the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its own backyard, to ratify the Kyoto protocol, to establish a national emissions trading scheme and to show that it is fair dinkum about climate change. Over the last 11 years of inaction and denial, there has been no evidence that the Howard government understands this. Up to this point in time there has been no evidence in the policies brought forward by the environment minister that he understands it either. The Howard government stands condemned for its lack of action on the important and critical issue of climate change.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingsford Smith said towards the end of his rambling and irrelevant remarks about climate change that fitness to govern is measured by the extent to which a party understands the nature of the challenge ahead. If that proposition is accepted as right—and it seems a reasonable one—then the member for Kingsford Smith has demonstrated comprehensively that he is unfit to form a part of any government and that he is certainly unfit to make any contribution to climate change. In his 15 minutes to speak on this matter of public importance, he missed the key point: that we are facing the greatest economic challenge of our times. The world needs a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the course of this century, and in order to achieve that massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions we need global action. We need to get all of the world’s major emitters committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is the challenge of the future.

Whoever you talk to in the climate change world—be they environment ministers, scientists or economists—they all recognise that the big challenge is how to bring the big emitting countries such as China, the United States, India and Europe together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, above all, to achieve that which Kyoto has failed to achieve, which is to secure meaningful reductions in emissions from the fastest growing emitters in the developing world—in particular, China, which in and of itself will contribute to 40 per cent of the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades. None of that was mentioned. The member for Kingsford Smith has no strategy for achieving the object that we need to achieve of global reductions in greenhouse emissions. If we do not achieve that, we will get nothing.

We do emit 1½ per cent of global greenhouse emissions, but we receive in our own territory 100 per cent of the consequences of climate change. So global action is vital. The Australian government is leading the world in climate change policies. We are leading the world on energy efficiency. We are the first country to phase out incandescent lighting. The British Prime Minister elect, Gordon Brown, complimented Australia on this only a few days ago. If the rest of the world were to follow Australia’s example, the world would reduce its energy demands by an amount equal to five times Australia’s electricity consumption. That is a significant move in energy efficiency.

We have also been a world leader in changing the standards for stand-by power so that, when devices like stereos or televisions are put on standby mode, they use less energy. That is again where we have been leading on energy efficiency—which is, after all, one of those early action opportunities that we have identified as being vital. We recognise that, to achieve the massive cuts in emissions that the world needs in the course of this century, we will have to get to a point by the middle of this century where the bulk of our stationary energy is generated with zero or near zero emissions. That is an enormous challenge. It is technically not possible to do today.

There are three countries at the cutting edge of clean coal development—Australia, the United States and the Netherlands. The fact is we are leading the world in those energy efficiency measures I mentioned: in clean coal development, which is so vital. There is no low-emissions technology more important to achieving the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions this century than clean coal, because coal is the most abundant source of stationary energy around the world. It is the most abundant source of energy for the fastest-growing economies—particularly China and India, who have substantial coal resources of their own. And if we can commercialise and complete the technology that the CSIRO is working on today to capture CO emissions after combustion and store them we could then begin to retrofit the coal fired power stations of the world.

We are leading in that area. I am not suggesting we are the only country working on it—we want everybody to work on it—but the member for Kingsford Smith runs down the achievements of Australian scientists and despises them in his arrogance. We are ahead, and it is because of the ingenuity of Australian scientists, the commitment of those men and women, and the support they have had over 11 years from the Howard government.

Let me mention another area where Australia is leading the world. The second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions comes from deforestation, and the bulk of that is in the tropical countries of the developing world. The Kyoto protocol basically does not deal with deforestation. It has been completely ineffective in dealing with deforestation in developing countries. In fact, as I have said in this place before, in some respects Kyoto actually encourages deforestation by promoting the use of palm oil. Of course, palm oil is grown in plantations which have been built after rainforests have been clear-felled, and many NGOs have said that the way Kyoto operates at the moment promotes deforestation.

That failing in Kyoto is well recognised, but it is Australia that has put $200 million on the table for a global initiative on forest and climate. It is Australia, first among developed countries, that is leading the charge to put forestry on top of the climate change agenda because, like energy efficiency, it is early action. If we reduce deforestation we can cut emissions today. What did the member for Kingsford Smith say about that measure, which has been so well received around the world in developing countries and developed countries from Washington to Jakarta? What did he describe it as? ‘A modest measure’; again he despises this effort, just like he despises the work of Australian scientists on clean coal. He despises the achievements of his own country and seeks to put it down.

We know we must do better in the battle against climate change—we all must; every country must—but let me say that Australia is playing its part and in vital areas is leading the way. Let me give you another example of where we lead the way, and that is in national carbon accounting. No country has a better-respected system for carbon accounting, so vital to responding to climate change. After all, if the objective is to reduce CO emissions, how can you manage something you cannot reliably measure? Our technology is so well regarded we are working closely and sharing it with other countries, including China.

But I will get back to the really big challenge of bringing all the nations together—that global commitment which Kyoto failed to achieve. The problem with Kyoto is that it did not deliver a pathway for the fastest-growing emitters to commit to emission reductions. Article 3.9 of the Kyoto protocol actually states that in future commitment periods—that is to say commitment after the one between 2008 and 2012, which is what we are tracking to at the moment—only developed nations will be asked to make cuts. That cannot work. We cannot achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions we need only with cuts from the developed world. There has to be contribution from across the world.

The honourable member also said it was absurd for me to say that we were doing well as against other developed countries. Let us remember this: our Kyoto target was 108 per cent of 1990 emissions, and we are on track to meet it. We have been criticised, I recognise, and there is an institute that said we may miss it by two per cent. Well, we will not miss it by two per cent; we will meet it. But let us compare our position to that of some other developed countries. We could be like Canada, which will miss its Kyoto target by 44 per cent; Spain, which will miss its by 36 per cent; or Austria—by 28 per cent—or the EU-15 itself. The 15 countries of the EU will collectively miss their target by seven per cent, based on their own domestic measures.

The reality is that among developed countries that are not former parts of the Soviet Union—which therefore benefited in a perverse way from the collapse of the Soviet Union, which of course resulted in their post-1990 emissions being dramatically lower—the only countries on track to better their Kyoto targets are the UK, which of course has benefited from Mrs Thatcher in effect shutting down the coal industry and moving to gas, although the move is coming back the other way, Sweden and Iceland.

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

And land clearing?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member asks about land clearing. Land clearing and land use are a vital part of the carbon cycle. He says he is fit to govern; he does not even understand how the carbon cycle works. You have got your carbon geosequestration, land use, planting trees and cutting down trees. These all have an impact on the carbon cycle, and of course they have to be taken into account. It is quite appropriate that they should be taken into account.

The member for Kingsford Smith and his colleagues—the Leader of the Opposition, in particular—always miss the point on climate change because they forget that global warming is a global challenge. They do not have a forward agenda. Consider the track record of the Howard government. We have established with other countries the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate—AP6, as it is called. This is a group of the largest emitters, including the biggest economy in the world, the United States, the fastest-growing economy in the world in China, and India and Japan. We have pulled together that group of countries and we are sharing and developing the technology that will enable each of us to achieve our objective of reducing emissions. In partnership with China we are developing the clean coal technology that will enable China to reduce its emissions and thereby achieve the reduction in global greenhouse emissions we need. That formed no part of the member for Kingsford Smith’s speech. There is no international agenda. It is as though he believes Australia is in a little bubble and we just have to do things in Australia and everything will be all right. This is a global problem.

His consistent failure to understand the facts associated with the issues in his portfolio is not limited to this particular issue of climate change today. Only a few days ago, late last week, the member for Kingsford Smith and the Leader of the Opposition pledged that a Labor government would send naval vessels—warships—to intercept, board and arrest Japanese whalers in the waters off Antarctica.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, that has nothing to do with the MPI.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does, Mr Deputy Speaker. Bear with me; it does.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tie it back to it.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The whaling issue is directly connected to climate change because the whales feed on krill, which in turn feed on algae which live underneath the ice shelf, which, of course, as the ocean is warming, is continuing to melt. So there is a vital need to protect the whales as part of our climate change response. The whales are under threat from global warming. That is one of the reasons why Australia is so committed to protecting whales and why I will be going to Anchorage shortly to again prosecute Australia’s case for the protection of whales. But our case has been undermined by the reckless ignorance of the member for Kingsford Smith, who proposed that the Australian Navy should engage in illegal action in international waters.

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

We proposed no such thing.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did. That is not the first time you have misled this House.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Discussion should be done through the chair.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingsford Smith and the opposition leader proposed that naval vessels should intercept and board Japanese whalers on the high seas in international waters, which are regarded by Japan and by almost every other country in the world as international waters.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has strayed from the topic of the matter of public importance—and he is misrepresenting Labor policy on whaling and he knows it.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The minister is straying a bit from the MPI.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The protection of the whales is a key element in the overall response to climate change and adaptation to climate change. Our efforts have been undermined. As the New Zealand minister, Chris Carter, said only the yesterday—(Time expired)

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that it was disappointing to listen to the minister. I did expect just a little bit more. I would have expected that in the 15 minutes the minister had on such an important and critical topic as climate change he would have spoken about climate change and not wasted the last five minutes of his contribution speaking about whales, which, in themselves, are a very important issue—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t care about whales?

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which are in themselves a very important issue, but not related to this particular debate today. What it really means is that the minister had run out of excuses, run out of ideas and was running out of time. Unfortunately, that relates directly to what is happening globally. We are running out of time. This minister was given 15 minutes to explain what he and his government would be doing to tackle one of the planet’s gravest problems it faces today; the minister spent the last five minutes he had speaking about whales.

This government does not understand what needs to happen. This government just simply does not get it. Their story on climate change has been the story of two truths: an inconvenient truth, one that clearly spells out the climate change reality, the problems we face and the mounting evidence that exists—I don’t think anybody is a denialist any longer; I think people really understand it—and the propaganda truth, which is their answer to climate change. That is the government’s only solution for climate change. It will be an expensive mail-out to eight million homes, a ‘be alert but not alarmed’ fridge magnet that will somehow save the planet. I don’t think so. This is the government’s only response.

While the rest of the world tackles the serious issue of climate change, of carbon emissions, of water quality and a whole range of other problems—while there is a consensus building outside in the global community—this government spends time ridiculing experts, ridiculing the states and attacking the opposition but delivering no solution itself. This is a government that is out of control. This is a government that now exists in a permanent mode of spin and propaganda—a government that takes no action; it just puts out propaganda to say that it is looking at these issues. I think that people in the community certainly do get it. They do understand it.

This disinformation being provided by government is doing them more damage than they understand themselves. We see more money spent now on propaganda advertising campaigns than on actual programs. This is a government gone completely mad. The two truths I mention highlight the direction that Australia is going in. We need a government that will listen—a government and a minister that will understand the issues. This government says that nobody has done more than them on climate change, but what have they done?

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They just say that it is true that they have done more. More than what? I would say that individual people in Australia have done more on their own and more collectively than this government has done. I would say that business has hopped on board, but not through any assistance provided by this government. They have decided themselves, individually and collectively, that this issue is now so important that they have leapt over the federal government. They have stopped looking for leadership, because none is being provided. They have now decided to provide the leadership. It is the mums and dads at home saving water, looking to energy-efficient appliances, looking to put solar panels on their roofs, looking to make a difference individually; it is businesses such as News Corp on a global footing saying it can make a real difference.

Why is this happening in Australia today? Because there is no other leadership. There is no-one in power, there is no-one from the federal government, standing up to the box and saying: ‘We will lead. We will provide the tools and mechanisms.’ Australians are sick of the spin and the propaganda, and so are we. We need a government that will lead Australia. And we heard it again today from the minister: somehow Australia is just too small; somehow Australia cannot make a difference. I disagree. I think Australia can make a difference. I think small nations can play huge roles, massive roles. I think the moment that Australia announces that it will ratify the Kyoto protocol there would be enormous pressure on the only country left in the developed world that has not done it. But it would also send a very strong signal to China and to other developing nations that they can also do more. In fact, these nations are taking it very seriously. I know for a fact that China is already taking huge steps forward by having a policy that it will be 20 per cent self-sufficient on renewable energy sources by 2020. It is doing something concrete: it is setting targets, it is putting out something that it can measure, assess, review, benchmark against.

This government will not set benchmarks. It will not set any targets because it does not want to be reviewed, it does not want to have to measure up to anything that it might have to do that could be measured or assessed in some way. All the government says is that it is meeting Kyoto targets. But then why not sign up? Why not, for the little bit of pain that you get out of the Kyoto targets, reap the benefits? Why not allow Australian business to go out there and make some economic gain through global carbon trading, emissions trading, through the things that we can do, through developing new industries here in Australia? Businesses today in Australia that want to deal in these areas and start a whole new industry, a whole new wave of jobs, have to go offshore because there is no mechanism in Australia for them to trade. This is the sort of leadership that is missing in this country.

Labor on the other hand has some very clear direction and some very clear policy. We do not just talk about these things; we believe in these things. We have believed that we ought to be doing something for many, many years. We believe strongly in ratifying the Kyoto protocol. If this government is true to its word and believes in Kyoto 2, then let us do 1 first before we move on to 2. Let us take the necessary steps in order. Australia needs to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. You need to work to that target and to that goal. It is equivalent to removing some eight million cars off the face of the planet. It is a lot of emissions. If we aim for those targets, we can make a difference. I do not want to hear from the government any more that we are just too small, that we are insignificant, that we do not play a role. When I hear that, all I hear are excuses from a tired government. Eleven years in office is a long time to do very little and, on climate change, to do nothing except deny, provide misinformation, confuse, do everything you possibly can to muddy the debate while everybody else in the world is singing from the same song sheet. Everybody else in the world now has moved on. We are trying to provide solutions while this government continues to make excuses.

Labor will set up a national emissions trading scheme, something that is essential for us to play our role. Labor will set up a $500 million national clean coal fund. I heard the minister talk about clean coal. The reality is Australia is a coal country and we need clean coal. We need to form a whole new industry and we support it. I see government members shaking their heads, but every opportunity the government gets, it talks about what its so-called alternative solution is. For them it is not clean coal; for them it is the nuclear path. This is not the answer. In purely economic terms for Australia it is not the answer. It certainly is not the answer in environmental terms. It just does not stack up. That is the harsh reality. Not only does the community not support it, but it does not stack up economically or environmentally. But that is the only solution put forward by this government—a pie in the sky, go somewhere-go nowhere nuclear vision that is supported by no-one in the community.

Labor is committed to a $500 million green car innovation fund—real innovation in industry that will do more than one thing: it will help the environment, it will help the economy and it will help create jobs. It will help create a whole new industry, a new export market for Australia, something we can be proud of and build upon, something real and tangible that can be done today. Manufacturing needs a boost, but here you get two birds with the one stone. This government has no answer to this. A green car innovation fund would generate some $2 billion in investment and secure jobs and create a whole new industry. We need to substantially increase the mandatory renewable energy target. Again we need goals, we need targets, we need to make sure that Australia sets itself a benchmark and says: ‘We can do better. No matter what we are doing today, we can do better. We will lead; we will show the rest of the world. We are not going to let the rest of the world pass us by and make us look like the Luddites.’ Australia can do much better and it will. We need a national climate change summit. And you know what? We got one.

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

We had to do it!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had to do it, that is exactly right. We had to do it because the national government could not do it, would not do it, because it does not have the will. And that is the point of my contribution today, to say this: this is the story of two truths—an inconvenient truth and a propaganda truth. And people have a choice: choose who you— (Time expired)

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the things that has come out of the debate today while I have been sitting here listening to those who have gone before me is that some do not have the ability to recognise the amount of work that the national government has done. Not actually recognising that, over the past 11 years, this government has worked assiduously to enhance and protect our environment and heritage. More than $20 billion has been spent on environment protection—and I know this probably more than some in the House, because I have been away from the House and I have come back. I left this House in 1998 and I have since seen the work that has been done. The programs that are out there, the investment in landcare. As was outlined by the minister today, there has been investment internationally in reforestation. It does not take a genius to work out what you can do when you only need a shovel, a seed and some money.

Two billion dollars of that $20 billion has been invested in climate change activities. Australia, as you heard from the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, leads the world in many areas of technology, including sequestration, and in sending out the message that deforestation is a problem for the world, not just a problem for Australia. The whole debate today has been taken in the context of the Australian experience. When the member for Oxley talked about clean coal he did not even mention that the other day we put $50 million into clean coal. The opposition did not even talk about how much damage they are going to do to jobs in the Latrobe Valley, in the Collie mines in Western Australia and in the Hunter. The Howard government is the government that is investing in technology that could change our future when it comes to clean coal.

When we spend $200 million on global forests we are doing something about global climate change that has an effect on greenhouse gas emissions now through sustainable forest practices. If we can stop those forests being taken away, that is an instantaneous reduction, an instantaneous result and an instantaneous example of Australia leading the way. It is through deforestation that problems creep through the world, affecting so many areas of our lives. If we only halved the rate of global deforestation it would lead to global emission reductions five times greater than Australia’s total annual emissions. I will repeat that: if we only halved the rate of global deforestation it would lead to global emission reductions five times greater than Australia’s total annual emissions and almost 10 times greater than those to be achieved under the existing Kyoto protocol, which will only reduce growth in annual emissions by one per cent. This initiative offers the world its best near-term chance for a breathing space as we develop technologies that will ultimately change the world. The Australian government is investing in a range of projects, including renewables, but above all we are focused on clean coal. Why is that? Because coal is the world’s most abundant energy source. The single fact is that today you cannot run baseload power on renewables. And I know the member for Mallee is about to speak on renewable energies and our approach to what is going on.

I would like to move on to what the minister said in question time today. He used the word ‘crisis’ with regard to water. Every member of this House has heard the word ‘crisis’ overused for every situation that comes before every member or minister or shadow minister. There will be a group somewhere that says, ‘We have a crisis, we have a crisis, we have a crisis.’ I will tell you what a crisis is. When south-east Queensland is running out of water, that is a crisis; when Sydney’s water supply is under threat, that is a crisis; when the Thomson Dam in my electorate is only 29 per cent full, that is a crisis; and when Melbourne’s water supply is so depleted and there is so little rain falling in the catchments that the city could be laid waste, that is a crisis.

I cannot understand why the Bracks government in Victoria is saying: ‘It is going to rain. It will have to rain.’ The Victorian state government’s position is the most amazing abrogation of responsibility of any state government that has been in power as long as it has. It sits on its backside and watches this real crisis unfolding, but everybody who gets up and says, ‘We have a real problem with Melbourne’s water supply,’ is called Chicken Little. The facts speak for themselves. The water that we have in storage is going down and the catchments are not been refilled. With average rainfall in the Thomson Dam catchment, I think it would take 50 years to fill. With the rainfall that we have been getting in the Thomson Dam catchment, it will not fill in a lifetime.

I know there are people praying for rain. Even the Bracks government said it has been on its knees. All it has done is attack the federal government to shift the blame away from its consideration of what it is going to do. In their arguments they say: ‘We have tapped into the Tarago Dam to service Melbourne. But hang on, that project won’t be ready till 2010.’ The problem is now. I do not know what part of Australia the members in the chamber come from, but they should take a decent look at what is happening in South Gippsland in my electorate. We rang a farmer today whom I visited two months ago regarding exceptional circumstances assistance.  I said, ‘How is it going?’ He said: ‘Yes, we’ve had a bit of rain. We had a few of those showers that came through. But we still haven’t got run-off water.’ They are still carting water every day for their dairy farm. There is a crisis that the state government is not facing up to. They have put millions of dollars aside for capital works for water, but no-one can make a decision as to what to do. Yes, the blessed rain we have had has been fantastic in Victoria because it has dampened everything down and given the gardens a bit of a go and there is a bit of greenery around, but at the same time there is no run-off and it is not filling our dams. I know this from my dam at home and from what is happening in the Thomson and in the rest of the catchments around the state.

And when Victoria is in trouble the rest of the nation is in trouble, because it is about to affect our power supply and our industries. It means massive job losses if you cannot supply that water. Is that understood? It is not just the water that you will get to your drinking tap; it is the fact that power stations are now actually having to look for other avenues to get the water to produce the power. Think about it. We are sitting here in this parliament with baseload electricity running this place. If we were on solar or wind power we would be standing in darkness. That is what people have to come to grips with. The brown coal in Victoria is a treasured resource, and the jobs that surround that brown coal in Victoria, and our clean coal program, are very important—unless you want to sit here in the dark. Actually, I think I look better in the dark.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No!

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it’s true. But just think about what you are faced with here. There is a crisis with water supply across this nation. People must recognise it. They have to come to grips with the problem. In particular, the Bracks government in Victoria is sitting on its backside. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe if the member for McMillan wants to talk about water consumption, he could talk to the Prime Minister about his personal use at the Lodge and Kirribilli House. We have learnt at Senate estimates that 8.9 million litres of water were used at the two prime ministerial residences in the last financial year. That is about 170,000 litres a week or 24,500 litres a day—24,500 litres a day at the Prime Minister’s residences. If you want to do something about conserving water, talk to the Prime Minister about his prime ministerial use. Melbourne Water suggests households should aim to use less than 1,200 litres per person per week—and we see 24,500 litres being used each day at the two Prime Minister’s residences. Also, if the member for McMillan wants talk about alternative fuels and ensuring that we have electricity, maybe he should not be such an opponent of wind farming; maybe he should look at the alternatives out there and not just at his own electoral fortunes.

Climate change is the greatest challenge facing our nation today. We need to address climate change now because the costs of doing nothing are far greater than the costs of taking action. Mr Howard and Mr Costello have failed to rise to the challenge of climate change. They have adopted the attitude: ‘If we ignore it, it will go away.’ The climate change challenge will not go away. The consequences of climate change for Australia, and for the planet, will be catastrophic. And the failure of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to acknowledge the magnitude of the climate change challenge will ultimately cost Australian jobs and hurt the Australian economy. Mr Howard has known since 1995 that climate change was a huge threat to Australia but has denied the problem even exists.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will address people by their title or their electorate.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the last 11 years, the 1995 and 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, the 2003 Australian guide to the science and potential impacts of climate change, the 2005 Climate change: Risk and vulnerability report and the 2006 Stern report have all stated what this year’s United Nations climate change report told us—that we have a massive climate change problem on our hands and we have to act now. For the last 11 years, the Howard government has denied climate change and delayed taking any action. It has presided over $89 million in unspent programs over the last year and allowed a soaring level of greenhouse pollution to go unaddressed. I repeat: a staggering $89 million set aside to address climate change over the last 12 months has not been used to deliver these programs. This goes beyond irresponsible; it actually borders on the criminal. In fact, between 1998 and 2006, the government underspent its climate change budget by a staggering 36 per cent.

But this spending shortfall is hardly surprising from a Howard government full of climate change sceptics. The Australian public might be alarmed to know that the Howard government has funnelled twice as much taxpayer money into self-promoting advertising campaigns as it has spent tackling Australia’s soaring greenhouse gas pollution. What a complete and utter disgrace! We know that the Howard government has spent $4.1 million in the last week alone on advertising to rebadge Work Choices and $1.7 billion over the last 11 years on government advertising. The Australian public can quite rightly ask: what sort of priorities does this government have? The answer is: to put its short-term goal of getting re-elected ahead of the long-term health and viability of our nation and our planet.

We also know that the Howard government is planning to send every Australian household—eight million of them—a brochure on climate change, together with a letter from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has refused to reveal how much will be spent on this government direct mail campaign charading as Liberal Party pre-election material. But one thing is certain: it is going to be a very thin booklet and a short letter from the Prime Minister, because the government is shirking its responsibility to actually do something about climate change. After initially claiming he did not believe in climate change, but then faced with party polling, the Prime Minister suddenly became a climate change realist. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources this year claimed he was ‘committed to early action on climate change’. It is a bit late.

The budget revealed extraordinary underspending across 11 separate climate change programs. This government has no hesitation in rolling out multimillion dollar taxpayer funded advertising blitzes within days of announcements but cannot deliver its own climate change programs. Four of the programs that were not fully delivered involved Australia’s clean energy industry: the Solar Cities program, with $17 million underspent; the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, with $50 million underspent; the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, with $14.1 million underspent; and the advanced electricity storage technologies program, with $4 million underspent. On top of all this, this year’s federal budget also failed to deliver on climate change. There was not a mention. The climate change budget is less than 0.1 per cent of GDP and declining over the forecast period, contrary to the environment minister’s claim that Australia ‘leads the world in the fight against climate change’. The budget will not create new Australian clean coal jobs. The budget will not build a strong Australian clean energy industry. In fact, it is a setback for Australia’s clean energy industry—and it is a disgrace.

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for an opportunity to categorically repudiate the nonsense we have heard here this afternoon. To assert, as the MPI does, that absolutely nothing is being done is completely incorrect.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Burke interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chisholm is warned!

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To those Australians listening out there I say: this is a government that has made a major contribution to addressing this century’s greatest challenge. For opposition members to talk about failures is absolute nonsense. I have noted that their strategy is highly dependent upon the simple notion of signing up to a protocol, that that is the panacea for our problems and that they are going introduce a carbon trading scheme. But there is no detail as to what that is going to cost the Australian economy.

I would like to tell Australians, particularly my constituents who are listening: in the first year after their ratification of the Kyoto protocol in February 2005, electricity costs in Denmark rose by 39 per cent, a figure that is projected to increase in the next 12 months to 91.5 per cent—nearly a doubling of electricity charges.

This information was supplied last year by the NUS Consulting Group as a result of an international electricity survey. In one year, the electricity costs of the United Kingdom increased a staggering 41.4 per cent, projected to reach 80.7 per cent. In one year, France’s electricity charges increased 48 per cent, projected over a five-year trend to reach 75.6 per cent. This government is serious about addressing the challenge of the century confronting us —and that is not disagreed upon; at least we all agree it is the challenge of the century—but not in a way that crucifies the Australian economy, because the Australian economy is all about jobs and prosperity.

The opposition suggests that we use the fact that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are a mere 1.6 per cent as an excuse, but it is not an excuse. As a perfectly rational person, I would like to go to work on the big emitters. The member for McMillan has made reference to the dramatic challenge of reafforestation. Even Tim Flannery—I have read all his works and do not necessarily agree with them—asserts that the challenge is the big emissions. There is the potential to sequester enough carbon over the next 50 years to make up for human contribution right back to the 1800s. As a pragmatic Australian, I say: where are the benefits from making an international contribution for me and my electorate? As the minister has said, with a 1.6 per cent contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, we endure 100 per cent of the impacts of climate change.

In the last decade I have seen that in very real terms across my constituency of Mallee, with dramatically reduced precipitation outcomes and dramatically reduced reservoir yield which has put my constituents, particularly across the Wimmera, under category 5 water restrictions. They have been showering with buckets to preserve their water so they can use it to save their roses for another five years. There has been a furore recently, I note, as those in the metropolis have been confronted with that—and the member for McMillan has addressed that issue.

It is simply a complete manipulation for the opposition to come in here and suggest that there are simple panaceas—there are not. This is an enormous challenge. The government is rightly doing research to make sure that whatever we do does not penalise the Australian economy, because we as government members are immensely proud of the investments and tough decisions that we have made over the last decade that have ensured the Australian economy is strong. We want to continue to ensure that that occurs whilst also addressing this enormous challenge. It is the challenge of the century—there is no doubt about that. It is recognised. I have been researching this and understanding it for some time. What we heard today from the opposition is complete rhetoric and it is appalling.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.